A Lesson on the Constitution
Hi all, and Happy New Year!
The other day I posted my thoughts on why I think we can do better than APUSH, a course that I suppose seems like a good idea, but now just kinda sits there…once an emblem of the highest achieving history students, and now an anxiety-causing antiquated dinosaur that teaches to a test and does not emphasize real world skills.
I promised to give you a peek at something I do (as an example) in one of my advanced U.S. History classes that a teacher would never have time to cover comprehensively in a typical APUSH setting.
I start with a simple question: does the United States Constitution recognize property in man? Or to put another way - does the U.S. Constitution sanction slavery?
There are a lot of people out there - politicians, journalists, activists, and even academics who could easily fire off a simple straight forward answer one way or another, yes or no. They might even be able to list off a thing or two in support.
Now before YOU answer - remember…there’s a good chance here that this is a very complex question that will probably lead to a nuanced response. I mean, I spend two weeks on it, so you know that I think there is more to this story than a simple reduction to yes or no.
Of course - slavery existed at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution, so there’s that. There are even articles in the document that pertain to the institution, such as the infamous Three-Fifths Clause. But at the same time, nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly say anything about slavery or even race, for that matter. So what gives?
In order to understand what’s really happening, I put my students to work in the historical record. Fortunately, there are numerous published documents that can help them get the story - I use THIS, and if you can find a paperback version on the Interwebs, it’s pretty reasonably priced.
Anyway, I have the kids study the debates and other support of evidentiary value for the following clauses:
Article I, section 2 clause 3: The Three-Fifths Clause
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the Several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article I, section 8, clause 15: The Insurrection Clause
[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.
Article I, section 9 clause 1: The Importation Clause
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article IV, section 2 clause 3: The “Fugitive Slave" Clause
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.
What the kids discover, after about a hundred or so pages of reading (some of it in pretty tough 18th-century English) is that the founding generation knew exactly what they were doing here: to ensure ratification and adoption of this founding document, they reasoned that the best course of action was allowing for the institution without explicitly sanctioning it. In short, this series of clauses is a functioning compromise - meant to appease slave holders without carving the institution into stone at the federal level. So it turns out that the Constitution tolerates slavery without explicitly endorsing it.
You might ask: what’s the difference if in effect slavery remained intact and even flourished under this Constitutional system? I would say that is a pretty good question - that Frederick Douglass would answer much later on…when he noted that the Constitution existed in a way that could be bent to the will of slaveholders, but could also be bent to the will of those who championed freedom (more on that later…)
Now - that’s not all. We then proceed to the various state constitutions from the same era or a little later. It’s there where you see slavery explicitly defined as a race-based institution and acknowledged as a social and labor system. So, in this way slavery WAS sanctioned constitutionally - but at the state level, which would only become moot after the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery nationally at the end of the Civil War - many decades later.
But my point is that it takes a while to discuss and analyze and debate the historical record, what you can’t really do in an APUSH class. And, it strongly suggests to the students that historical events (much like today’s pressing issues) are much more complex than they appear at first blush.
Stick around, I’ll be putting up specific examples from the historical record this week . There will be plenty to chew on. For starters - check these:
With compliments,
Keith