[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_rZjCmUBEHftE91DeNru5KqLSSaOmvYzpnCjBdzKdLqM.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000129","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/5\/essays\/130\/prohibition-on-amendment-slave-trade\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EProhibition on Amendment: Migration or Importation\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n Article V\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n \n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E...no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article....\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n \n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EToward the end of the Constitutional Convention, after previous clauses concerning slavery had been settled, and in the midst of the discussion about the process of amending the Constitution, John Rutledge of South Carolina declared that \u201che never could agree to give a power by which the articles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not interested in that property and prejudiced against it.\u201d An addition to the clause was immediately agreed to that forbade amending the Migration or Importation Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1) and the Direct Taxes Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 4) prior to 1808, after which Congress could regulate the slave trade.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThis provision calls attention to the delicacy and precariousness of the compromises involved in these two clauses. Even though only a few states had begun to move toward abolition or gradual emancipation at the time, the tide of anti-slavery opinion seemed so strong as to excite the demands of Georgia and South Carolina in particular to preserve the institution at least within their own states. Taking a mid-summer break from the convention and knowing Southern opinion on the matter, Alexander Hamilton\u2014without breaking his pledge of secrecy\u2014prevailed upon John Jay and the New York Manumission Society not to submit a proposed petition to the Constitutional Convention to abolish slavery. At Hamilton\u2019s request, Jay even destroyed his draft of the petition.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EProtecting the slave trade in the Migration or Importation Clause revealed Southern concerns about the strength of antislavery opinion (which was at that time focused on stopping the slave trade). In fact, in 1787, only North Carolina and Georgia permitted the importation of slaves, and so the slave states thought that it might be difficult to prevent a coalition of Northern and upper Southern states from changing the Constitution on this question by amendment. Likewise, shielding the Direct Taxes Clause was an indirect way to emphasize the \u201cThree-fifths Compromise\u201d (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3) concerning the apportionment of direct taxes, as well as adding \u201cother taxes\u201d to that ratio, reflecting significant fears that the power to tax could be used to undermine the institution of slavery. Earlier, Gouverneur Morris, the most outspoken opponent of slavery at the convention, nonetheless conceded that \u201che did not believe that those [southern] States would ever confederate on terms that would deprive them of that trade.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EUnderscoring the temporary nature of the compromise, language in Article V ties the Direct Taxes Clause to this clause\u2019s \u201cimplied invitation\u201d to legislate on the slave trade after 1808. By that time, the internal production of slaves would be sufficient to supply the growing market so that economic self-interest did not stand in the way of legislation based on the moral revulsion to the slave trade. Congress accepted the invitation, and although the law underwent several modifications in subsequent years, on March 2, 1807, it passed a federal prohibition of the slave trade, effective January 1, 1808. The vote in the Senate had been eighteen to nine (with seven abstentions) and, in the House, 113 to five (with twenty-two not voting). A few weeks later, on March 25, 1807, following decades of agitation by William Wilberforce, the British Parliament also banned the trade.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EInterestingly, reference to the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) is not included here among the clauses protected from amendment. The omission signifies the broad consensus supporting the Fugitive Slave Clause and the fact that it was not at the time thought to be controversial.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \n \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Matthew_Spalding.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n Matthew Spalding\n \u003C\/h4\u003E\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n Associate ice President and Dean of Educational Programs, Hillsdale College\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000129-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000129-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000129-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000129-taba\u0022\u003E\n \n \u003Cdiv\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPaul Finkelman, The American Suppression of the African Slave Trade: Lessons on Legal Change, Social Policy, and Legislation, 42 AKRON L. REV. 431 (2009)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHenry P. Monaghan, \u003Ci\u003EWe the People[s], Original Understanding, and Constitutional Amendment, \u003C\/i\u003E96 Colum. L. Rev. 121 (1996)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000129-tabb\u0022\u003E\n \n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000129-tabc\u0022\u003E\n \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000005\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EThree-fifths Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000059\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EMigration or Importation Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000063\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EDirect Taxes\u003C\/a\u003E\n \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000123\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EFugitive Slave Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]