- [Instructor] In the last video,
we discussed one of the compromises made
at the Constitutional Convention,
the compromise of the electoral college.
In this video, I want to discuss
a different compromise.
The compromise over slavery.
Now, you'll remember that one of the issues
that the electoral college was trying to solve
was the idea that perhaps the revolution
and the concept of democracy had gone too far
in the United States
and needed to be reined in by the more elite class
of American citizens
who would be better able to make political decisions.
But the flip side of this
was whether the revolution had perhaps
not gone far enough.
In that, it didn't abolish the institution of slavery.
Now, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention
had sharply divided opinions over slavery.
Those who came from southern states
tended to be elite white men,
who were themselves slave owners
their own fortunes deeply tied into
the institution of slavery.
In the aftermath of the revolution,
many northern states began to either
outlaw or phase out slavery,
recognizing that it was incompatible
with the system of government defined
around the concept that all men are created equal.
But if they were going to replace
the articles of confederation,
they were going to have to find a way forward.
And I would say overall, the slaveowners got their way
more than not.
Now, one anti-slavery aspect of the constitution
was that it outlawed the international slave trade,
starting in 1808.
So, here in article one,
it states that the migration or importation
of such persons as any of the states now existing
shall think proper to admit
shall not be prohibited by the congress
prior to the year 1808,
but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation
not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
So they say, we'll give the international slave trade
20 years and then we'll get rid of it.
And indeed, on January 1st, 1808,
the international slave trade was outlawed
in the United States.
So, this middle passage in which enslaved Africans
were taken from west Africa
and brought across the Atlantic,
the end would never be in the United States.
But this doesn't mean that they outlawed slavery,
and it doesn't mean that they outlawed
the domestic slave trade,
the trade in slaves between states or within states.
In fact, up until about 1850,
one of the largest slave markets in the United States
was just around the corner from the White House
and the US Capitol.
So, imagine walking on the streets of Washington DC
and seeing these buildings
where democratic ideals are enshrined
and then going around the corner
and seeing women and children and men being sold
and families being torn apart.
It's a very powerful image.
But, although the framers did agree
to phase out the international slave trade,
they made another compromise
that was much more favorable to slaveholders.
The Three-Fifths Compromise.
Now, you'll remember that in deciding
how the legislative branch would represent the population,
in the Great Compromise, or Connecticut Compromise,
they agreed that in the House of Representatives,
the proportion of representatives
would be based on population,
whereas in the Senate,
every state would have two senators
regardless of its size.
Well, the big question for this
is who counts as part of the population?
Is it just white men?
Or do the large enslaved populations
of southern states also count?
Now, if you were a southern slave holder,
you would have been strongly in favor
of counting this population,
because it means you get more representation,
and thus more power in the House of Representatives.
If you were against slavery
or from a small state, or both,
you would've been bitterly opposed to the notion
that people who have no rights as citizens
should be counted as citizens to give those states
more power in Congress.
So, here's what they decided,
according to article one.
Representatives and direct taxes
shall be apportioned among the several states
which may be included within this union
according to their respective numbers,
which shall be determined
by adding to the whole number of free persons,
including those bound to service for a term of years,
and excluding Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other persons.
This three fifths of all other persons
really means enslaved Africans.
And you'll notice that the framers
are really talking around slavery.
In the part about the international slave trade,
they said migration of such persons.
Now they say three fifths of all other persons.
In fact, the word slavery never appears
in the original constitution.
So, why do they say three fifths of all other persons
or migration of such persons as states think it
proper to admit?
And honestly, I think the answer to this
is that the framers were ashamed of slavery.
They were ashamed that this institution
existed in a democratic society.
They knew that the eyes of the world,
the eyes of history, would look at this document
and this institution
completely sullied the idea of a democratic government.
So, as it says here,
their agreement was that for every five enslaved people
who lived in a state,
three of them would be counted
for the purposes of population.
This is a huge victory for slaveholders,
getting more power in Congress
for having people who can't vote,
who can't be citizens.
Why did the delegates of other states
allow this to happen?
And I think the simple answer is that
the constitution would not have been ratified
were it not for this compromise, among others.
The states of the south were too important
to getting that nine out of 13 necessary votes
to replace the articles of confederation
with this new constitution.
So, they made a compromise to make sure
that the constitution was ratified and improved.
But that compromise would have tremendous consequences
for the generations of enslaved people
who would live under that system.
And for the nation when the Civil War broke out in 1865.