Key Takeaways
1. Somerset Decision Ignited Southern Fears
News of the case echoed through American drawing rooms—the first repudiation of forced work by the mother country.
A legal earthquake. On June 22, 1772, Lord Mansfield's ruling in the Somerset v. Stewart case declared slavery "so odious" that it could only exist by "positive law" and was not recognized by English common law. This decision effectively freed thousands of slaves in England and sent shockwaves through the American colonies, particularly the slave-dependent South. Colonial newspapers widely reported the ruling, confirming slaveholders' fears that Britain might interfere with their "property."
Threat to the Southern economy. The Southern colonies, especially Virginia and South Carolina, relied heavily on slave labor for their agricultural economies, primarily tobacco and rice. The Somerset decision, coupled with Britain's Declaratory Act of 1766 (claiming parliamentary authority "in all cases whatsoever" over the colonies), presented a double-barreled threat:
- Legal vulnerability: Slavery, now deemed "odious," could be challenged under colonial charters' "repugnancy clauses" (laws not contrary to English law).
- Parliamentary intervention: Britain might tax or even abolish slavery in the colonies, undermining their entire economic and social structure.
Catalyst for independence. While earlier tax disputes had caused friction, the Somerset decision elevated the stakes, transforming abstract grievances into an existential threat for Southern elites. It fueled a growing belief that independence was the only way to secure their internal affairs, including the institution of slavery, from an increasingly meddlesome British Parliament.
2. Virginia's Strategic Response to Protect Slavery
The South would seek liberty from Britain, but only if doing so would protect slavery at home.
Uniting for self-preservation. Virginia's planter-lawyer-politician elite, deeply invested in slavery, viewed the Somerset decision as a direct assault on their way of life. They understood that British parliamentary supremacy, if applied to slavery, could lead to economic ruin and social upheaval. This fear galvanized them to action, shifting their focus from mere tax protests to a demand for complete autonomy over internal colonial matters.
Committees of Correspondence. In March 1773, Virginia's House of Burgesses, led by figures like Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry, passed a resolution calling for intercolonial Committees of Correspondence. This initiative, ostensibly to address British "rumours and reports" and "proceedings tending to deprive them of their ancient, legal, and constitutional rights," served a dual purpose:
- Information sharing: To coordinate responses to British actions.
- Building unity: To test the willingness of other colonies to make common cause against British interference.
Slavery as the unspoken driver. While the resolution broadly spoke of "liberty and property," for the Southern delegates, "property" implicitly included slaves. They recognized that a revolution could only succeed if the institution of slavery was secured within the new nation. This strategic move laid the groundwork for a united colonial front, but with the unspoken condition that Southern slavery would remain untouched.
3. John Adams's Compromise Secured Colonial Unity
I constantly said in former times to the southern gentlemen, I cannot comprehend this object. I must leave it to you. I will vote for forcing no measure against your judgments.
Forging a fragile alliance. At the First Continental Congress in 1774, John Adams, a leading Massachusetts delegate, faced the critical task of uniting the colonies. He understood that the Southern colonies, particularly Virginia, would not join a revolutionary movement without assurances that their institution of slavery would be protected. Despite his personal reservations about slavery, Adams prioritized colonial unity over immediate abolitionist aims.
The "Adams-Lee junto." Adams formed a crucial alliance with influential Virginians like Richard Henry Lee. Through private conversations and negotiations, Adams signaled his willingness to defer to Southern judgments on slavery. This tacit agreement was essential for securing the South's participation in the burgeoning independence movement. Adams's later confession to Jefferson confirmed this strategic concession.
Declaration of Rights and Grievances. The Congress adopted a Declaration of Rights and Grievances, with Article IV asserting the colonies' "free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity." This language, drafted with Adams's input, was a direct challenge to parliamentary supremacy and, for the South, a guarantee of control over slavery. Joseph Galloway's alternative plan for a joint British-American Parliament was rejected because it did not offer this absolute internal control, demonstrating the South's unwavering commitment to protecting slavery.
4. The Declaration's "Immortal Ambiguity" on Equality
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—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Crafting a unifying vision. Thomas Jefferson, tasked with drafting the Declaration of Independence, faced a profound dilemma. He needed to articulate universal principles of liberty while navigating the stark reality of slavery, particularly after the Virginia Convention's contentious debate over George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Mason's original language, proclaiming "all men are born equally free and independent," had caused an uproar among Virginia slaveholders who feared it would incite slave revolts or lead to abolition.
Strategic omissions and ambiguities. To avoid alienating Southern support, Jefferson made critical changes:
- "Created" vs. "born": He replaced "born" with "created," a more abstract term that avoided direct contradiction with hereditary slavery.
- Omission of "property": Crucially, he removed "property" from the list of unalienable rights, replacing it with "the pursuit of happiness." This prevented the Declaration from explicitly enshrining slave ownership as a fundamental right, which Southern delegates like Thomas Lynch had demanded.
- Deletion of anti-slavery clause: Jefferson's original draft included a strong condemnation of King George III for perpetuating the slave trade and inciting slave rebellions. This clause was removed at the insistence of South Carolina and Georgia, and with the tacit consent of Northern states involved in the slave trade.
A powerful, yet compromised, statement. The resulting Declaration, while a beacon of liberty, contained an "immortal ambiguity." It proclaimed equality for all men, yet allowed for the continuation of slavery, a compromise essential for securing the unity needed to declare independence. This foundational document, therefore, simultaneously inspired future movements for equality and perpetuated the very injustice it seemed to condemn.
5. Articles of Confederation Explicitly Protected Slavery
If it is debated whether their slaves are their property, there is an end to the confederation.
Reinforcing state sovereignty. Following the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress moved to establish a national government. John Dickinson's initial draft of the Articles of Confederation proposed a central government with significant powers, but Southern delegates, led by John Rutledge of South Carolina and Thomas Burke of North Carolina, vehemently opposed any federal authority that could interfere with slavery. Rutledge feared that a strong central government, influenced by Northern "levelling principles," would destabilize the political and economic order by threatening slave property.
Rejecting the Somerset principle. The final version of the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1777, dramatically curtailed federal power, explicitly stating that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States." This states' rights provision ensured that slavery remained under the sole control of individual states.
Guaranteeing slave property. Furthermore, a crucial amendment to Article IV of the Articles explicitly protected slave owners' rights: "provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid." This clause directly repudiated the Somerset decision, ensuring that slaves could not gain freedom by entering or escaping into a "free" state. This provision was a clear precursor to the Fugitive Slave Clause in the later Constitution, cementing slavery's protection at the national level.
6. Western Expansion Became a Battleground for Slavery
The voice of a single individual would have prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country.
New lands, new conflicts. With the end of the Revolutionary War and the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the United States acquired vast western territories, more than doubling its size. This expansion presented both immense opportunities and a critical challenge: the future of slavery in these new lands. Southern planters, whose tobacco crops depleted soil, sought new territories for slave labor, while Northern settlers, including many veterans, desired slave-free lands where white labor would not have to compete with enslaved labor.
Jefferson's failed attempt. In 1784, Thomas Jefferson proposed an ordinance for the temporary government of these territories, which included a clause to prohibit slavery after the year 1800. This modest, prospective abolition was defeated by a single vote, with Southern states (Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia) voting against it, and North Carolina divided. Jefferson lamented that "the voice of a single individual would have prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country."
Slavery's legal status in the territories. The defeat of Jefferson's proposal meant that slavery remained lawful in all U.S. territories. This was a critical legal interpretation: without explicit prohibition, the existing laws of the ceding states (which permitted slavery) continued to apply. Subsequent efforts by Northern figures like Timothy Pickering and Rufus King to introduce immediate or prospective bans on slavery in the territories also failed in 1785, further solidifying slavery's legal presence across the entire western domain.
7. Constitutional Convention Deadlocked Over Slavery
The States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which resulted partly from climate, but principally from (the effects of) their having or not having slaves.
A nation on the brink. The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, highlighted by events like Shays's Rebellion, led to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The Virginia Plan, proposing a strong national government with proportional representation, immediately sparked conflict between large and small states. However, James Madison, the Convention's keenest observer, soon identified the true, deeper division.
Slavery: The fundamental divide. On June 30, Madison articulated a profound insight: "The States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which resulted partly from climate, but principally from (the effects of) their having or not having slaves." This was the first public acknowledgment at the Convention that slavery, not state size, was the central, defining conflict between the North and the South.
The three-fifths rule and representation. The debate over representation in the new Congress became inextricably linked to slavery. Southern states demanded that slaves be counted for representation (to increase their political power) but not for taxation (to reduce their financial burden). The proposal to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for representation in the House of Representatives was fiercely debated. Northern delegates, like Elbridge Gerry, questioned why "blacks, who were property in the South, be in their rule of representation more than the cattle and horses of the North?" The Convention reached a perilous deadlock, with threats of the Union splitting "at the Delaware."
8. Northwest Ordinance: The Grand Compromise to Save the Union
There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: provided, always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.
A solution from New York. While the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was paralyzed by the slavery debate, the Continental Congress, meeting concurrently in New York, unexpectedly provided a solution. On July 13, 1787, with a quorum finally achieved by the arrival of Southern delegates from Philadelphia, Congress adopted the Northwest Ordinance. This landmark legislation, drafted by Nathan Dane of Massachusetts and significantly influenced by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, was a direct response to the deadlock in Philadelphia.
Dividing the nation. The Ordinance made a crucial, Solomon-like division:
- Slavery prohibited: It explicitly banned slavery and involuntary servitude in the territory north of the Ohio River. This created a vast slave-free zone, addressing Northern fears of slavery's unchecked expansion and providing land for white settlers without competition from slave labor.
- Slavery permitted: By limiting the prohibition to the "territory of the U.S. NW of the River Ohio," it implicitly allowed slavery to continue in the territories south of the Ohio River.
- Fugitive slave clause: It included a provision for the return of fugitive slaves from the original states, a concession to Southern interests.
A strategic Southern concession. The Southern states' unanimous vote for the Ordinance, despite their previous opposition to any slavery restrictions, was a calculated move. It secured the Union, channeled antislavery sentiment northward, and protected slavery in the South and its westward expansion. This compromise, a "mutual modification" of the 1774 agreement, was essential for the Constitutional Convention to proceed and ultimately succeed.
9. The Bargain Cemented a Divided Nation
The new system, which seems admirably calculated to unite their interests and affections, and bring them to an uniformity of principles and sentiments, is equally well combined to unite their wills and forces as a single nation; a result of accommodation cannot be supposed to reach the ideas of perfection of any one.
The Connecticut Compromise. News of the Northwest Ordinance's adoption reached Philadelphia by July 14-15, 1787. On July 16, the Constitutional Convention adopted the "Connecticut Compromise," which established:
- Equal representation in the Senate: Each state would have two senators, satisfying smaller states.
- Proportional representation in the House: Representation would be based on population, with three-fifths of slaves counted, satisfying Southern states.
This compromise, which had been fiercely debated, passed after the Northern delegates, now assured of a slave-free Northwest, dropped their objections to the three-fifths rule.
Ratification and re-affirmation. The bargain was further cemented:
- Virginia's ratification: In 1788, the Virginia legislature, despite its earlier land cession conditions, ratified the Northwest Ordinance, explicitly acknowledging its antislavery clause.
- First Congress's endorsement: In 1789 and 1790, the First Congress under the new Constitution re-affirmed the Ordinance, extending its principles to territories south of the Ohio but with the crucial proviso that "no regulation made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves."
A fragile foundation. John Adams recognized that the Constitution and the Northwest Ordinance together formed a "new system" of "accommodation." This division of the nation into slave and free territories, while saving the Union in 1787, created tensions that would define American politics for decades, ultimately leading to the Civil War.
10. Founders' Flawed Legacy: A Nation Born to Protect Slavery
We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.
The enduring dilemma. The American Revolution, while proclaiming universal liberty, was fundamentally shaped by the need to protect slavery. The compromises made from 1774 to 1787, particularly the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution's pro-slavery clauses, ensured the institution's survival for nearly another century. Thomas Jefferson's poignant metaphor, "We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go," captured the inescapable grip of slavery on the nation's conscience.
Consequences of compromise. The decision to divide the nation into slave and free territories had profound, long-term consequences:
- Geographical polarization: It channeled pro-slavery settlers southward and westward, and antislavery settlers northward, creating distinct societies with opposing values.
- Economic disparity: The presence of slave labor in the South depressed the value of white labor, fueling resentment and economic competition.
- Inherent contradiction: The nation's founding principles of liberty and equality stood in stark contrast to the reality of human bondage, a contradiction that would eventually erupt in civil war.
A call to continuous improvement. While the founders' compromises were born of their time and the necessity of forging a union, they left a legacy of racial injustice. Figures like Edward Coles, who freed his slaves and fought for abolition in Illinois, and Benjamin Franklin, who proposed an early affirmative action plan, demonstrated that alternative paths were possible. The Civil War, and subsequent civil rights movements, represent later generations grappling with the "wolf" of racial inequality, striving to "improve and perpetuate" the nation's founding ideals, as Madison urged, by expanding the gates of liberty and equality for all.
Last updated:
