Register to read the introduction…
They speak of justice as the basis of political organization: in the Declaration of Independence states that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed” (paragraph 2), and the Preamble lists, among the reasons for “ordain[ing] and establish[ing] this Constitution for the United States of America,” “to ... establish Justice.” The U.S. government would thus be held accountable not in just a practical way—via elections, whereby officials who did not serve their constituents could be replaced in a peaceable manner—but in terms of a value, an ideal. The Declaration, in justifying the break with Britain, gives many concrete examples of the unjust governing by “the present King of Great-Britain,” such as “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.” For the purposes of our evaluation of the inevitability of the Civil War, however, we need to focus on the most fundamental element of the standard of justice laid down by the Declaration: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (paragraph 2). Needless to say, who exactly constituted “Men” here was entirely subject to interpretation, but “all” is not. From the standpoint of the expressed ideology, therefore, the existence of an institution, slavery, that treated one group of people as property, could clearly be challenged as violating a central tenet of American political thinking. The Constitution, by virtue of the designation of the popular vote as the means of election in general, and tying population to the number of members of the House of Representatives in particular, paved the way for the bitter political disputes and failed compromises of the 1840s and 1850s and eventually the Civil War.
…show more content…
In fact, the seeds of conflict were already being sown at this point, as the reality of slavery, particularly in the Southern states, impacted the discussion of population during the Constitutional Convention—specifically who would be counted and who would not (“excluding Indians not taxed,” U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3), or who would be counted partially (“three fifths of all other [unfree, i.e., enslaved] Persons.” In 1770, the population of the colonies was around 2 million (Roark et al., p. 138), but the slave percentages of the populations of each region—New England, the Middle colonies, and the Southern colonies—varied considerably. In New England, slaves were 3% of the total population of roughly 500, 000 (Roark et al., p. 142); in the Middle colonies, they were around 7% of the total population of roughly 430,000; but in the Southern colonies, slaves constituted 40% of the total population of roughly 1,000,000. Based on raw numbers, the Southern colonies should have been apportioned the same number of members of the House of Representatives as New England and the Middle colonies combined. Because of the three-fifths clause, the population of the Southern colonies in 1770 was reduced to 600,000 free and 240,000 enslaved, making a total of 840,000—still a significant proportion of the entire colonial population. The Constitution, therefore, bears witness to the tension that existed between the states due to their varying demographies, a tension that would grow knottier over the following 90 years. The nation’s leaders had attempted to forge a political unity among the colonies, one that accommodated the socioeconomic status quo in each. The Southern colonies remained agricultural, and later Southern states adopted a similar economy as conditions were found to be favorable. However, population growth in the South began to lag behind that in the North, and not just because the former region was almost entirely rural. Certain Southern agricultural practices were unsustainable: the historian Alan Kulikoff (1986, pp. 47–48) describes how eighteenth-century tobacco planters in the Chesapeake region, for example, rotated fields rather than fertilize them, with the result that the land became exhausted by the middle of the century, thus impelling planters to move in search of new land. Obviously, the Chesapeake area did not become deserted, but nor could it support any substantial increase in population. And yet Southerners saw no reason to make a change. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 (Roark et al., p. 445) and the resulting prosperity many planters enjoyed by planting cotton
In fact, the seeds of conflict were already being sown at this point, as the reality of slavery, particularly in the Southern states, impacted the discussion of population during the Constitutional Convention—specifically who would be counted and who would not (“excluding Indians not taxed,” U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3), or who would be counted partially (“three fifths of all other [unfree, i.e., enslaved] Persons.” In 1770, the population of the colonies was around 2 million (Roark et al., p. 138), but the slave percentages of the populations of each region—New England, the Middle colonies, and the Southern colonies—varied considerably. In New England, slaves were 3% of the total population of roughly 500, 000 (Roark et al., p. 142); in the Middle colonies, they were around 7% of the total population of roughly 430,000; but in the Southern colonies, slaves constituted 40% of the total population of roughly 1,000,000. Based on raw numbers, the Southern colonies should have been apportioned the same number of members of the House of Representatives as New England and the Middle colonies combined. Because of the three-fifths clause, the population of the Southern colonies in 1770 was reduced to 600,000 free and 240,000 enslaved, making a total of 840,000—still a significant proportion of the entire colonial population. The Constitution, therefore, bears witness to the tension that existed between the states due to their varying demographies, a tension that would grow knottier over the following 90 years. The nation’s leaders had attempted to forge a political unity among the colonies, one that accommodated the socioeconomic status quo in each. The Southern colonies remained agricultural, and later Southern states adopted a similar economy as conditions were found to be favorable. However, population growth in the South began to lag behind that in the North, and not just because the former region was almost entirely rural. Certain Southern agricultural practices were unsustainable: the historian Alan Kulikoff (1986, pp. 47–48) describes how eighteenth-century tobacco planters in the Chesapeake region, for example, rotated fields rather than fertilize them, with the result that the land became exhausted by the middle of the century, thus impelling planters to move in search of new land. Obviously, the Chesapeake area did not become deserted, but nor could it support any substantial increase in population. And yet Southerners saw no reason to make a change. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 (Roark et al., p. 445) and the resulting prosperity many planters enjoyed by planting cotton