Walls of Separation
TimeWatch Editorial
July 18, 2016
One of the elements of race and class that has received very little comment in the annals of history is the aggregation of slaves in the early United States of America. Even when the matter is acknowledged, the full impact is never really acknowledged. In 1783, the Colonies of the United States came together to establish the Articles of Confederation. One of the issues that arose was the matter of representation. The question was asked, should slaves be included in the count of population of the states or should they be assessed as property for the purpose of taxation. The southern states, obviously those who held the greater number of slaves proposed that their slaves should be counted for purposes of representation. The northern states of those with few or no slaves at all thought that they should be assessed as property for the purpose of taxation.
“A contentious issue at the Constitutional Convention was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation of the states in the Congress or would instead be considered property and, as such, not be considered for purposes of representation. Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation, but as property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population. Delegates from states where slavery had become rare argued that slaves should be included in taxation, but not in determining representation.”Constitutional Rights Foundation - "The Constitution and Slavery:" Retrieved November 21, 2007
It is to the day ironic, that it was a liberal northern delegate, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, who proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, as a way to gain southern support for a new framework of government.
“So it was that on the 17th of July 1787, the Three-fifths Compromise was enacted. The issue of how to count slaves split the delegates into two groups. The northerners regarded slaves as property who should receive no representation. Southerners demanded that Blacks be counted with whites. The compromise clearly reflected the strength of the pro-slavery forces at the convention. The “Three-fifths Compromise” allowed a state to count three fifths of each Black person in determining political representation in the House. Rather than halting or slowing the importation of slaves in the south, slavery had been given a new life — a political life. Even when the law stopped the importing of new slaves in 1808, the south continued to increase its overall political status and electoral votes by adding and breeding slaves illegally. The Three-fifths Compromise would not be challenged again until the Dred Scott case in 1856. “The Three Fifths Compromise,” The African American Registry Website
This definition of a slave as three-fifths of a person, even though arrived at for political reasons, seems to have settled into the psyche of many a generation following. The controversy over a slave’s citizenship continued until as was quoted above, the Dred Scott Case in 1856.
According to the Chicago Kent College of law description of the matter, Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.
“In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. Although Taney hoped that his ruling would finally settle the slavery question, the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, especially Republicans. Many contemporary lawyers, and most modern legal scholars, consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave African Americans full citizenship.”"Legislation Declared Unconstitutional". CQ Press
It is rather interesting that today, the debate continues regarding the value of these descendants. Perhaps one of the unintended consequences of the election of the first African American President was to bring to the surface feelings that had been long hidden. Perhaps the solution is expressed in the Review and Herald, December 17, 1895.
“Walls of separation have been built up between the whites and the blacks. These walls of prejudice will tumble down of themselves as did the walls of Jericho, when Christians obey the Word of God, which enjoins on them supreme love to their Maker and impartial love to their neighbors”-- Review and Herald,, Dec. 17, 1895.
Cameron A. Bowen
