WI the orginal US constitution had the right to keep slaves?

King Thomas

Banned
What if "The right to keep slaves" had been in the US consitution along with the right to bear arms? Before you say it's totally and utterly ASB, Washington and a president or two after him owned slaves. If this did appear in the consitution, how long would it be before the consitution was amended to remove the right to keep slaves, given that the South had slavery until the end of OTL's Civil War?
 

Philip

Donor
What if "The right to keep slaves" had been in the US consitution along with the right to bear arms?

It was implicitly in the Constitution (Article 1 Section 2). We don't even have to get into 10th Amendment discussions.

. If this did appear in the consitution, how long would it be before the consitution was amended to remove the right to keep slaves,

Roughly the same as OTL.

given that the South had slavery until the end of OTL's Civil War?

Parts of the North too.
 
What if "The right to keep slaves" had been in the US consitution along with the right to bear arms?

Pretty much same as OTL. The Federal government still has the power to do certain things like ban international slave trade (which it did), ban interstate slave trade (preventing people from selling their slaves to other states when their state eventually becomes a free state), heavy taxes, etc. Basically make keeping slavery completely worthless.

Think of how slavery was ended OTL.

1) States giving it up on their own (the North).
2) As a military action (the majority of the CSA).
3) As a constitutional amendment (the rest of the CSA, border states)

First two won't be prevented by the altered constitution. The third removes that bit of the constitution, ending the divergence (outside of any butterflies).

If you mean guaranteeing slavery everywhere, making it illegal for states to ban slavery, then it's ASB. Many of the politicians at the time, even the ones that had slaves, felt it was a necessary evil. Something they'd get rid of if they could, but didn't want to risk the economic ruin (either to their person for freeing their own slaves, or the nation for complete abolition).

Before you say it's totally and utterly ASB, Washington and a president or two after him owned slaves.

Quite a few more than one or two, actually! IIRC, JQA was the first president to not have any slaves.

Parts of the North too.

Eh. Depends on how you define "the North." The border states weren't really northern in outlook. Either west/midwest in the case of Missouri, Kentucky, and WV, or south in the case of Maryland and Delaware.
 

Philip

Donor
Eh. Depends on how you define "the North." The border states weren't really northern in outlook. Either west/midwest in the case of Missouri, Kentucky, and WV, or south in the case of Maryland and Delaware.

Eh, yourself. The OP referred to the South (note the capital) in the context of ACW. North and South are fairly well defined in that context.
 
(paraphrase) All rights not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved for the people and the states, respectively.

Thus, since the right of individuals to own slaves was not specifically denied by the constitution, it was understood by everyone this was part of the basic right to own property. It would have made absolutely no difference if this right was spelled out...it would have taken a constitutional amendment to make slavery illegal at the federal level.
 
You mean John Adams, not John Quincy Adams.

You're right, my mistake. Of course, John Adams still opposed a bill for statewide abolition, despite his own personal beliefs, which is the point I was trying to make.

And while we're going off on side tangents that don't have that much relevance, your signature still makes me want to strangle a small child.
 
So say an 11th amendment is added to the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing slavery. I'd say that, in the long term, gun control advocates might use the argument that guns are just as obsolete as slavery.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Eh. Depends on how you define "the North." The border states weren't really northern in outlook. Either west/midwest in the case of Missouri, Kentucky, and WV, or south in the case of Maryland and Delaware.

Even "the North" had a reasonable slave population. Only Massachusetts was slave free.
 
Even "the North" had a reasonable slave population. Only Massachusetts was slave free.

In 1860, the following states had no slaves:

California
Connecticut
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Wisconsin

Following only had negligible slave populations. I assume they belonged to out of staters or something along those lines.
Kansas (2)
Nebraska (15)
New Jersey (18)


Which part?

Both, but mostly the first part.
 
Some Northern states also had slavery institutions like slave breeding houses (I kid you not). There is one downstate near Cairo. Sure, just a hop over the river to a slave state, but technicaly in IL.
 
Some Northern states also had slavery institutions like slave breeding houses (I kid you not). There is one downstate near Cairo. Sure, just a hop over the river to a slave state, but technicaly in IL.

Do you have any other information on this?

Pretty surprising to me. At least for an amount that could be considered a "reasonable" slave population. Since they were able to hide well enough from the census, I can't picture any more than a few thousand.

Anyway, you should PM any other info to me, instead of staying on this thread. We should keep on topic. :)
 
Well other people might be interested. All I can say is I've been there. It is sort of a tourist attraction now. Can't remember the name.
 
Top