Manumission Made Always Legal in USA Constitution

Many timelines have wondered what would have happened if slavery had been made illegal in the US constitution, or if a date for abolition had been set. I would like to ask what would have happened if manumission, the voluntary freeing of a slave by the master, had been constitutionally protected, so that no state could interfere with the right of a slave-owner to free his own slaves, along with abolishing the slave trade in 1807. Would this have been especially difficult to achieve at the convention? I propose this addition to the original constitution because southern states would outlaw manumission in order to maintain the institution of slavery, as there was a fear that all the slaves soon could be freed, and such a clause in the constitution seemingly could have a big result down the road.
 
Manumission did happen, there just weren't any protections that the freed slave would stay free. Free blacks could be enslaved as sentences for crimes, or slave catchers could claim that they were actually escaped slaves.
 
Manumission did happen, there just weren't any protections that the freed slave would stay free. Free blacks could be enslaved as sentences for crimes, or slave catchers could claim that they were actually escaped slaves.

It is not that it didn't happen, but some states put up obstacles, and I believe that some made it outright illegal.
 
Top