Synopsis

     As America made the transition from colony to independent nation, they had to choose whether they would continue the practice of slavery. Having finally brushed off the tyrannical hand of Britain America sought to be a nation of liberty, where “all men are created equal”, but how far would this sentiment extend? To what extent did America consider slavery in creating the Constitution and what does this say about the relationship between Americans and African Americans at this time?

     The first article looks at the colonial practices of slavery in America to get a perspective on what tradition America was taking with them when drafting the Constitution. In  the colonial era slave codes controlled the institution of slavery. These codes “defined as slaves “all Negroes, Mullatoes, and Indians” who had been, or were to be, “bought and sold”” (Wiececk & William, 262), separating slaves from humanity. “The slave was a capital investment” (Wiececk & William, 266) and the slave codes reflect this identity. Going into the Constitution we see that for many Americans the view of slaves merely as investments, from the colonial era, persisted.

     The second article argues that slavery is supported by the Constitution saying “American War of Independence was barely won before the discourse of slavery made its presence felt in terms of America‘s identity” (Lowance & Pildith, 62). The authors point out the inconsistency in the American ideology, which can at once support freedom and slavery. By avoiding direct confrontation of slavery in the Constitution, the government left room for states to step in and therefore paved the way for slavery.

     The third article shows both sides of the argument on this Constitution debate, but feels that overall its significance is overplayed. The author argues that when the Constitution was drafted almost everyone felt slavery was a state problem. Though the Framers knew it was important they did not address it, feeling they did not have the power to do so. In the author’s mind, “slavery was for most players a secondary issue that they could use to great advantage in pressing their respective points” (Mason, 946).

     The last of the articles felt  slavery was addressed on multiple levels in the Constitution, both direct and indirectly, as a means of compromise necessary to bind the colonies. Not all of the Framers supported the act but they “contended with the snake of slavery… by writing into the United States Constitution implicit protections of the peculiar institution” (Knowles, 310). The Constitution is not specifically pro-slavery but it “nevertheless implicitly accommodated that institution” (Knowles, 322). The article argues slavery can only truly be created by legislation and by the same regards only legislation can denounce slavery.

     As evident from these writings, the question of slavery in the Constitution is still debated to this day. Since the document can be freely interpreted or strictly upheld, people are able to get whatever message they want from it. Without examining other writings of the Founders, it can be difficult to get a true interpretation of their intent with the Constitution. At the very least the original Constitution did in fact accommodate slavery, treating slaves as invests rather than men.

References:

Lowance & Pilditch. “Writing the Law: Literature and Slavery in Nineteenth Century America” Australasian Journal of American Studies 27, no. 2 (2008): 66-82. 

Wiecek & William M. “The Statutory Law of Slavery and Race in the Thirteen Mainland Colonies of British America” William & Mary Quarterly 34, no. 2 (April 1977): 258-280

Mason, Mathew. “Slavery and the Founding” History Compass 5, no. 4 (September 2006): 943-955

Knowles, Helen J. “The Constitution and Slavery: A Special Relationship” Slavery & Abolition 28, no. 2 (December 2007): 309-328

Short Essay Five

     Many African men and women became slaves in the Atlantic. The vast majority would spend the whole of their lives toiling in fields, never to see the world and never to be educated.  Ouladah Equiano was an exception. Working at sea and under some more liberal masters, Equiano received an education and the ability to record his life in a memoir. In his life, he would lose freedom and gain it back only to realize that true freedom comes with faith. Meanwhile in mortal life, the little freedom available in the Atlantic was dependent on conforming to European ways.

     Upon entering the state of slavery, Equiano desired freedom. Though he was in awe of his European captures, he saw them as “sable destroyers of human rights” (Equiano, 29). He condoned the “inhuman traffic of slavery” (Equiano, 251) which so corrupted man and felt that the life of a slave meant, “being daily exposed to new hardships and impositions” (Equiano, 113). Equiano envied the free Europeans he worked with and began to take on their customs and languages. He thought if he bought his release from slavery, he would be free. Once he final procured his release he realized that no longer being a slave did not perfectly equate with being free. Life as a slave had been “dreadful; but the state of a free negro appeared to [him] now equally so at least, and in some respects even worse” (Equiano, 117). A freed slave must constantly guard his liberty while blocking constant insult with no chance of redress. With this realization Equiano pored himself into his faith.

     Equiano had long associated religion with freedom. As a young slave he argued that his master "could not sell [him]” since he had “been baptized; and by the laws of the land no man ha[d] a right to sell [him]" (Equiano, 176).  He could not see how religion could ever support slavery since it gave “one man a dominion over his fellows which God could never intend” (Equiano, 104). The more time Equiano spends as a free man the more he realizes that in the worlds current state his best chance to be truly free is to have a spiritual freedom and hope that other Christians see and respect that freedom. Once Equiano feels he has reached this place for himself, he works to spread his message in hopes of helping all Africans one day reach the equality of freedom and respect.

     Equiano despises Europeans for practicing slavery, but still wishes to emulate them. This dilemma is a mark of the complexity of the relationship between Europe and Africa at this time. Even with the fatal flaw of slavery, Equiano views Europeans as more advanced. After all slavery in not purely a European institution as Equiano’s homeland had slavery as well. He asks Europeans to recall their “ancestors were once, like the Africans, uncivilized, and even barbarous” (Equiano, 43), showing that he feels Africa is behind Europe, but should not be penalized for it. He wants Europe, as the advanced nation, to help lead Africa to an age of enlightenment, instead of taking advantage of their disadvantage. Even his ultimate realization of freedom through religion is dependent on adoption of European customs as Christianity is the religion he practices. Equiano clearly feels that to reach freedom, Africans need to become more like Europeans, a sentiment not shared by all.

     Equiano believed the “abolition of slavery would be in reality an universal good” (Equiano, 252), but his road to abolition, to freedom, required following in the footsteps of Europe and in the grace of god. Those Africans in chains too longed for freedom, but some of them wanted to return to Africa and cut ties with Europe, others would not mind as much staying, but held fast their own customs. In his life, Equiano had even worked on one of the ships destined to return Africans to Africa. Equiano was different from many slaves in his worldliness and education, which caused him to be more exposed to Europeans and their ways. This exposure could explain his personal belief that freedom could be obtained through Christianity (the religion of Europeans) and his desire to emulate Europeans. It is not incidental that Equiano was only able to reach his final belief of what freedom is after being “free” in the company of Europeans.

Short Essay Four

     In an era when slavery prevailed, France did not allow slavery. Like other European nations, they had a Freedom Principle, but unlike other European nations, they stuck by theirs. From this commitment came the notion that “there are no slaves in France" (Peabody, 7). This sentiment is not entirely true, certain laws such as the royal Edict of October 1716 and Declaration of December 15, 1738, would allow slave to be temporarily brought to France under certain condition. However, with the Parliament of Paris never registering these acts “the laws' status [was put] in a state of legal limbo for the high court's jurisdiction” (Peabody, 6). So essentially, we have a major nation refusing to partake in system of slavery at a time when most other nations were. The multiple reasons for France’s support of freedom, and for setting free “any slave who sets foot on French soil” (Peabody, 3) are distinctly abstract and personal. Abstractly the long-standing maxim connecting France to freedom summed up to a sense of national pride and humanitarianism that kept slavery from France. Personally, lawyers had much to gain from taking on cases of slaves suing for freedom.

     According to Lemerre, three elements contributed to the correlation of France with freedom. Among those elements were Henry II’s edict to enfranchise serfs and “natural law, which recognized all men as equal” (Peabody, 21). Lemerre highlighted aspects of French history to support the freedom principle. Other scholars did the same and as a result “the maxim equating France with freedom seems to have been invented…in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by bending ancient statutes and precedents to present needs” (Peabody, 24). Once this maxim was in place, it became a thing of national pride to uphold it. The people of France went out of their way to maintain the maxim, from the Parlement of Paris refusing to register royal edicts that would allow slaves into the country to individuals personally supporting slaves and helping them sue for their freedom. Even the crown at times supported the maxim as “Louis XIV's first response was to uphold the Freedom Principle by fiat, granting freedom to individual slaves who petitioned for the recognition of their new free status upon arrival in France” (Peabody, 6). The concept fueled itself, for as more slaves came to France and were freed under the Freedom Principle the maxim became more true leading to efforts to free more slaves. The maxim became an inseparable part of the identity of France even with there being legal methods for slaves to be brought into France temporarily, so much so that to this day many French people say “there are no slaves in France” (Peabody, 1).

     For those slaves who were not immediately freed upon arriving in France and instead sued for freedom they required lawyers; this is where the personally motivation for freeing slave comes into play. For a lawyer taking on a case of freedom there was much to be gained, from notoriety to capital, and as a result “lawyers actively sought out these cases and promoted them in the court” (Peabody, 54). One of the greatest benefits of taking on a case of this sort was the experience to be gained. In a time where there was a high influx of lawyers emerging on the field, any experience was helpful. The fact that a trend of wins followed this type of law practice just meant that even more lawyers found the cases valuable.  In the 1750’s alone “over 150 slaves won their freedom in Paris's Admiralty Court” (Peabody, 6). From working on one of these cases, a lawyer could create a memoir, and many did. These memoirs added notoriety in addition to experience gained. As always with law remuneration is a motivating factor, but when defending a person who had little more than the clothes on his back, it seems unlikely that there will be a chance to earn any money. It is true that these cases did not pay in some cases and lawyers still took them, but there actually was a chance to make a profit from these cases. On occasion, the lawyer would charge the slave, and other times the lawyer could actually force the former master to pay the legal fees. Overall, these lawsuits were valuable to lawyers, which motivated these men to pursue the Freedom Principle.

     The freeing of slaves who touched the soil of France was solely a national matter. The idea was to “prevent slavery from entering the metropolis, not to increase the numbers of freedmen in the colonies” (Peabody, 14). This only supports the notion of the Freedom Principle being a matter of national pride and being for personal benefits. The people wanted to have no slaves in France, because the maxim dictated that France be a place of freedom, and the people wanted to uphold the tradition. The lawyers benefited personally from the maxim because the lawsuits it brought in gave experience, notoriety, and occasionally wealth. In the French system, the benefits of slavery did not outweigh the interests of the people.