US Origins May 7 2026 (Thursday) -- Expansion of Slavery and Political Compromise Political and Economic Conflict Over Slavery ($$1787$$-$$1850$$)

Constitutional Interpretations of Enslaved Persons and Representation

• Terminology in the Constitution: The founding fathers avoided using the word "slave," instead referring to them as "other persons." This term was intended to stand in for enslaved individuals without making explicit distinctions based on age (adults vs. children), gender (men vs. women), or race (black vs. white).

• Representation vs. Taxation Struggle: The debate between the North and South centered on how to count these "other persons" for two primary purposes:     * Representation: The South wanted enslaved people counted to increase the number of representatives their states would have in Congress, thereby increasing their political power. The North was "absolutely against" this, as it would disadvantage free states.     * Taxation: Use of the "head tax" (an amount paid per person) created a reversal of arguments. The South wanted enslaved people counted as "property" rather than "people" to avoid paying higher taxes. The North argued they should be counted as people so the South would contribute more to the federal treasury.

• The Irony of Southern Arguments: The South made contradictory claims depending on the context: for representation, slaves were "people"; for taxation, they were "property."

The Three-Fifths Compromise: Racism and Economic Efficiency

• General Misconception: It is a common belief that the Constitution defined Black people as three-fifths of a human being. The speaker clarifies that free Black people were counted as whole persons; the fraction applied specifically to enslaved persons.

• Racism as a Justification: While the compromise was a power struggle between regions, it was indirectly racist. Because the Declaration of Independence asserted that "everybody is entitled to certain rights," slavery could only be justified by asserting that enslaved people were inferior and did not count as part of "all men."

• The Economist View of Three-Fifths: The specific number of $\frac{3}{5}$ did not originate from a random guess but from an economic theory common at the time regarding the efficiency of labor:     * Economists argued that slave labor was approximately $\frac{3}{5}$ as efficient as free labor.     * Incentive Theory: A free laborer (such as a farmer’s son) has a vested interest in doing a good job. Conversely, an enslaved person has no incentive to be productive and will "drag their feet as much as possible" because they do not benefit from the labor. Their only motivation is to avoid physical punishment.

The Missouri Compromise and the Balance of Power ($1819$–$1821$)

• Context of $1819$: Slavery had not been a major national controversy since the Constitution until Missouri applied for statehood. At this time, the U.S. consisted of states reaching down to Georgia (not yet Florida), and included Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.

• The Missouri Application: Missouri met population requirements and sought admission as a slave state. Slavery already existed there because the U.S. had promised Napoleon (who sold the Louisiana territory in $1803$ to fund his wars) that the property rights of French settlers would be respected.

• The Compromise of $1820$:     * Missouri entered as a slave state ($1821$).     * Maine (previously part of Massachusetts) entered as a free state ($1820$).     * This maintained an equal balance of $12$ free states and $12$ slave states.     * The $36^{\circ} 30'$ Line: This southern border of Missouri became the dividing line for the rest of the Louisiana Purchase. Slavery was banned in all territory north of that line (future Iowa, Minnesota, Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas) and allowed south of it (Arkansas and Oklahoma).

• The Senate as a Check: While the North always held an advantage in the House of Representatives due to a larger population ($39,000,000$ in modern California vs. half a million in Wyoming is used as a contemporary example of this principle), keeping an equal number of states ensured the South could block anti-slavery legislation in the Senate.

The Nullification Crisis ($1828$–$1833$)

• Origins: The conflict began with a high tariff passed in $1828$ (the "Tariff of Abominations"), which Southerners hated because it increased the cost of fancy imported goods and clothes for slaves. The tariff was extended and increased in $1832$.

• South Carolina's Defiance: Led by John Calhoun, the state held a constitutional convention in $1833$ to declare the federal tariff null and void within its borders. Calhoun argued that because the states created the Constitution, they should decide if a law is constitutional.

• Legal Precedents: The speaker cites the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (written by Madison and Jefferson) against the Alien and Sedition Acts as earlier examples of states claiming the right to nullify unpopular federal laws.

• Resolution: President Andrew Jackson (himself a slaveholder) threatened to use physical force to collect the taxes. A compromise was reached: South Carolina rescinded its resolution after the federal government agreed to lower the tariff behind the scenes.

Economic Incompatibility: Slavery vs. Capitalism

• Industrialization Barriers: Capitalism could not easily develop in the South while slavery existed due to labor issues:     * White Labor: Non-slave-owning white men mostly owned their own land and had no interest in working in factories.     * Slave Labor in Factories: Slaves made poor factory workers because machinery requires care. Slaves would often intentionally break machinery to get out of work since they lacked incentives.

• Limited Southern Industry: Some industrialization occurred (farm tools and cloth) only to save on transportation costs—it was cheaper to have slaves make poor-quality clothes on-site than to ship cotton North and buy textiles back.

• Industrialist Demands: Northern industrialists realized that for the South to industrialize, slavery would have to be abolished to create a mobile, motivated workforce. This created a "very concrete way" in which the two systems were in conflict.

The Gag Rule and Manifest Destiny

• The Gag Rule: In the early $1830s$, abolitionists flooded Congress with anti-slavery bills. To keep the government functioning and avoid conflict, Congress passed the "gag rule": any bill related to ending slavery was immediately "tabled" (set aside) into oblivion.

• Rescinding the Rule: By $1844$, there was enough anti-slavery sentiment in the North that opponents were able to rescind the gag rule.

• Manifest Destiny: Coined by newspaperman John O'Connor (editor of the Democratic Review), this was the belief that it was America's God-given destiny to settle the entire North American continent from the East Coast to the Pacific.

• Expansion Interests:     * North: Interested in the Oregon Territory (including British Columbia), which was jointly settled with Britain.     * South: Interested in Texas, which had become an independent republic in $1836$ after breaking away from Mexico (largely over the issue of slavery and cultural contempt for Mexicans).

The Mexican-American War and Territorial Gain

• James K. Polk’s Campaign ($1844$): Polk ran on an expansionist agenda to satisfy both regions, using the slogan "$54^{\circ} 40'$ or Fight" regarding the Oregon border.

• Outbreak of War: After annexing Texas, Polk sent troops into a disputed area between the Nueces River (Mexico’s claimed border) and the Rio Grande (Texas’s claimed border). When Mexico attacked, war began.

• Polk’s "Betrayal" of the North: To avoids fighting two wars at once, Polk cut a deal with Britain, ceding British Columbia and setting the border at the current parallel. Northerners felt Polk only cared about southern expansion.

• Outcome: The U.S. easily won the war, acquiring California (following the "Bear Flag Revolt") and the Southwest territory. This massive expansion reignited the political battle over whether new territories would allow slavery, a conflict that politics would eventually fail to resolve, leading to the Civil War.

Questions & Discussion

• Question: At the time of the Constitution, was the majority of the population in slave states made up of slaves?

• Answer: At the time of the Constitution, only South Carolina had a majority-slave population. Later, states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana would also become majority-slave, but they had not reached that point yet.

• Question: How did the founding fathers make it clear they were referring only to slaves with the term "other persons"?

• Answer: The speaker admits they don't exactly know how it was made clear in terms of the specific legal language chosen by the founders, but confirms that "other persons" was universally interpreted as a stand-in for slaves.