US Constitution guarantees slavery

Additional amendment as part of the Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law, as to infringe on the right of the people, to own and buy Negro slaves, nor shall Government in any way seek to regulate, the treatment of slaves or bondservants by their owners; such matters, shall be left to the conscience, of the individual Citizen."

This might border on ASB, but the point is, what consequences does it have for slavery in the US?
 
Hm... Massachusetts banned slavery in 1783, before the Constitution- would this amendment stop states from banning slavery on their own initiative? I can't tell- I would think no, but it does mention the "individual Citizen" and not the individual State.
 

JohnJacques

Banned
It wouldn't fit with the reigning interpretation of the time- that the Constitution did not apply within individual states (McCullough v. Maryland, I believe. It was somebody vs. Maryland)

Its already basically there anyways:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Beyond that, they were very euphemistic, not calling it slavery till the Confederate Constitution. Instead, it would be something like this:

Congress shall not interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State
 
Congress shall not interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State

I know (didn't they use the same fancy language when they discussed the transatlantic slave trade?). Still, my point was to render it completely unambiguous so it will actually require an amendment, as opposed to just a far-fetched SCOTUS judging (like "Separate but Equal" to justify racial discrimination).
 
I'd think that if the Constitution had specifically allowed slavery, it would have been eventually outlawed by an amendment, although it might have lingered on longer than in OTL... national and international morals were turning against slavery all through the 19th century, and eventually, the US would have to bow to the pressure... plus, there were all the problems with the economics of slavery, which would only have gotten worse...
 

JohnJacques

Banned
I know (didn't they use the same fancy language when they discussed the transatlantic slave trade?). Still, my point was to render it completely unambiguous so it will actually require an amendment, as opposed to just a far-fetched SCOTUS judging (like "Separate but Equal" to justify racial discrimination).

The chance of them spelling it out like that is nil. Thats the thing about the Constitution- its full of ambiguities.

Any anti-slavery amendment would be up to interpretation. And whats with the 2nd amendment punctuation in your version?
 
The chance of them spelling it out like that is nil. Thats the thing about the Constitution- its full of ambiguities.

Should I request for it to be moved to ASB? The point remains, what would the history of slavery look like with these premises? Does it stay longer, and get spread to the new territories? Is there still a Civil War? Etc.

Any anti-slavery amendment would be up to interpretation.

Of course.

And whats with the 2nd amendment punctuation in your version?

For the hell of it.:D
 
I know (didn't they use the same fancy language when they discussed the transatlantic slave trade?). Still, my point was to render it completely unambiguous so it will actually require an amendment, as opposed to just a far-fetched SCOTUS judging (like "Separate but Equal" to justify racial discrimination).
But didn't it require an amendment to abolish slavery nationally in OTL?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
IIRC, the only thing in the Constitution which is specified as absolutely permanent and which cannot be altered even by constitutional amendment, is that all states have equal representation in the Senate.

Perhaps the Southerners could have demanded a similar provision for slavery. The Northerners would have found it distasteful, but would they have been willing to go to the wall on the issue if it meant that the Convention would fall apart otherwise?
 
Hm... Massachusetts banned slavery in 1783, before the Constitution- would this amendment stop states from banning slavery on their own initiative? I can't tell- I would think no, but it does mention the "individual Citizen" and not the individual State.
Would this stop Vermont entering the Union? The 1777 constitution of the Republic of Vermont- which became the state constitution in 1790- prohibits not only slavery but also indentured apprenticeships.
 
Top