tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post4182576118567493658..comments2024-03-27T08:40:31.785-06:00Comments on Clayton Cramer.: America's "Racist" Constitution Clayton Cramerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-25748499849527606882021-07-20T17:38:42.849-06:002021-07-20T17:38:42.849-06:00Search for "Restrictions in Maryland": f...Search for "Restrictions in Maryland": for an example.<br /><br />"South Carolina was the first Southern State in which the exigencies of a great staple crop rendered the rapid consumption of slaves more profitable than their proper maintenance. Alternating, therefore, between a plethora and a dearth of Negroes, she prohibited the slave-trade only for short periods. In 17883 she had forbidden the trade for five years, and in 1792,4 being peculiarly exposed to the West Indian insurrection, she quickly found it "inexpedient" to allow Negroes "from Africa, the West India Islands, or other place beyond sea" to enter for two years. This act continued to be extended, although with lessening penalties, until 1803.5 "Clayton Cramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-22698987428512581392021-07-20T17:33:11.355-06:002021-07-20T17:33:11.355-06:00Available here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/17...Available here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/17700/17700-h/17700-h.htmClayton Cramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-62737476994113835232021-07-20T17:31:20.521-06:002021-07-20T17:31:20.521-06:00It was his doctoral dissertation at Harvard (1896)...It was his doctoral dissertation at Harvard (1896) and a splendid history.Clayton Cramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-12271028565753454122021-07-20T17:29:41.623-06:002021-07-20T17:29:41.623-06:00W.E.B. Dubois' _Suppression of the Atlantic Sl...W.E.B. Dubois' _Suppression of the Atlantic Slave Trade_ (his doctoral dissertation, I believe) lists the years the various states prohibited the importation of slaves, some during the Revolution. There was no guarantee that every state would do so, but it was definitely the direction that everyone assumed we were heading: abolitionists hated importation because it was slavery; surprisingly enough some slave holders were uncomfortable with breaking up families (and many worked hard to avoid it even in America); slave breeders in Virginia figured it would increase demand for slaves and therefore increase prices.Clayton Cramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-26343597889193310102021-07-18T15:20:59.318-06:002021-07-18T15:20:59.318-06:00Really?
One wonders what was the point of the con...Really?<br /><br />One wonders what was the point of the constitutional provision then.<br /><br />Is there a source for the dates when the various states did this? And why South Carolina reversed when it did? (Aside from general pro-slavery cussedness.)<br /><br />And that history plays into the alt-hist idea: if it was known that all states would prohibit the trade themselves, then the conditional restriction on federal action might be left perpetual.<br /><br />In which case, as I noted, any of the original states could unilaterally nullify any national immigration restrictions.<br />Rich Rostromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13262703348236110420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-44614621496684126722021-07-17T22:33:38.181-06:002021-07-17T22:33:38.181-06:00Everyone understood that importation of slaves wou...Everyone understood that importation of slaves would end in 1808. Indeed, every State prohibited importation until South Carolina changed its mind and relegalized import just before the 1808 law.Clayton Cramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-48168202360110835792021-07-16T15:07:49.270-06:002021-07-16T15:07:49.270-06:00The Constitution never mentions race, except for t...The Constitution never mentions race, except for the reference to "Indians not taxed". The notorious "3/5 clause" applied to slaves, not to blacks; "free colored" persons (as they were then called) counted the same as anyone else.<br /><br />However, the Constitution did not "set a deadline for abolition of the international slave trade in 1808." Rather, it stated that<br /><br />"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 ..."<br /><br />which meant that the slave trade could not be touched before 1808, if any of the original thirteen states permitted it.<br /> Incidentally, that very indirect way of addressing the question prohibited any restriction on immigration. For an alternate-history seed, what if that clause had been phrased in such a way that the general bar on immigration restriction was perpetual? But still dependent on the original thirteen?Rich Rostromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13262703348236110420noreply@blogger.com