Mark Waldstreicher's article, "How the Constitution Was Indeed Pro Slavery," presents a compelling case that the foundational document of the United States was not merely a compromise with slavery, but an active instrument in its preservation and expansion. Rather than an unfortunate concession, Waldstreicher argues, key constitutional provisions were deliberately crafted to protect and advance the interests of slaveholding states, shaping the nation's trajectory for decades to come. This essay will examine Waldstreicher's central thesis by analyzing his interpretations of the Electoral College, the Three-Fifths Compromise, and the Slave Trade Clause, demonstrating how these elements, far from being neutral or even reluctantly accepted clauses, were potent tools for entrenching slavery within the American republic.
One of the most significant arguments Waldstreicher makes concerns the Electoral College. He contends that this system, established by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, was not a general safeguard for less populated states, but a specific mechanism designed to inflate the political power of slave states. Because the Electoral College allocates electors based on a state's total congressional delegation—its representatives plus its senators—the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, directly translated into increased electoral votes for slaveholding states. This meant that the votes of enslavers carried disproportionate weight in presidential elections, granting them an advantage they would not have possessed under a purely popular vote system. Waldstreicher highlights that this was no accidental outcome; it was a calculated move by Southern delegates to ensure their continued influence in national politics, even as the moral and political arguments against slavery gained traction elsewhere. Without this inflated representation, the political landscape would have been drastically different, potentially limiting the expansion of slavery and accelerating its eventual demise.
Furthermore, Waldstreicher meticulously dissects the Three-Fifths Compromise itself, presenting it not as a compromise in the sense of a mutual concession, but as a victory for the slaveholding South. While Northern delegates may have sought to limit the political power of slave states by refusing to count enslaved individuals for representation, the final agreement allowed them to be counted for three-fifths of a person. This had a dual effect: it increased the South's representation in the House of Representatives and, consequently, its number of electoral votes, while simultaneously allowing Southern states to avoid direct taxation based on the full population count. Waldstreicher emphasizes the profound hypocrisy and self-interest embedded in this clause. The enslaved were considered property for economic purposes, but persons for political representation, a legal and moral contortion that benefited enslavers directly. The compromise, therefore, was a sophisticated piece of political engineering that codified and legitimized the dehumanization of enslaved people for the express purpose of augmenting the political power of their owners.
Finally, Waldstreicher turns to the Slave Trade Clause, Article I, Section 9, which prohibited Congress from banning the "migration or importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" until 1808. He argues that this clause was not merely a temporary pause, but a fundamental guarantee that the Atlantic slave trade would continue unimpeded for twenty years, thereby ensuring a steady supply of enslaved labor for the burgeoning American economy. This provision, he asserts, was a non-negotiable demand from Southern states, and its inclusion was essential for securing their ratification of the Constitution. By forbidding federal interference, the clause effectively protected the economic foundation of slavery, allowing for the continued acquisition of enslaved Africans and the perpetuation of the institution. Waldstreicher points out the irony that a document ostensibly founded on liberty and self-governance would explicitly safeguard the brutal trade in human beings for such an extended period, demonstrating the deep-seated commitment to slavery at the nation's inception.
In conclusion, Mark Waldstreicher’s article compellingly argues that the United States Constitution was not a neutral document or a flawed compromise with slavery, but an actively pro-slavery instrument. Through his analysis of the Electoral College, the Three-Fifths Compromise, and the Slave Trade Clause, he demonstrates how these provisions were strategically employed to protect and enhance the power of slaveholding states. The Constitution, therefore, served not just to accommodate slavery, but to embed and fortify it within the nascent republic, setting the stage for over eight decades of conflict and suffering. Waldstreicher's work forces a critical re-evaluation of the nation's founding document, revealing the undeniable extent to which its architects prioritized the perpetuation of slavery.