Slavery Clauses in the United States Constitution

1. What specific regulations/rules does the U.S. Constitution make about enslavement in America (article I: sect. 2 #1; article I, sect. 9, #1; article IV, sect. 2, #3)? 
Article I, Section 2 includes the “three-fifths” clause, which helped slave states gain more Congressional representatives by allowing slaves to count as “three fifths” of a person. Article I, Section 9, Number 1 places a new tax on the importation of new slaves, essentially leading to the ban on the trans-Atlantic trade. Article IV, Section 2, Number 3 contains the Fugitive Slave clause. This clause mandates that anyone who apprehends a runaway slave return that person to the owner. Essentially, this clause makes it a crime to aid, assist, or house a fugitive slave. Source: United States Constitution
2. How specifically is the "3/5 compromise" a compromise between southern “slave states" (i.e., VA, SC, etc.) and northern “free-labor” states (NY, MA, etc.)?
The “three fifths” clause was framed as a compromise because the Southern states actually wanted slaves to count as full people. It seems ironic that the slave states would have wanted slaves to count as full people under the Constitution; the reason was both to gain more tax revenues and to gain more clout in Congress (”Three-Fifths Clause,” n.d.). Taxes were distributed proportionately, as well as the allowances for members of Congress. Northern/free states objected, as counting slaves would strengthen their political opponents in the South while offering no tangible benefits to their own constituents. Therefore, a compromise was reached.
3. Also, how specifically is the prohibition against ending the "slave trade" before 1808 a compromise between southern “slave states" (i.e., VA, SC, etc.) and northern “free-labor” states (NY, MA, etc.)? 
The 1808 clause did not decisively end the slave trade; it simply presented a tariff that served as a compromise between those who wished to perpetuate the trade indefinitely as a means of bolstering the economy in general, and those who wished to end the slave trade (“The Slave Trade and the Constitution,” 2012). It was not just for humanitarian reasons the north wished to end the slave trade. The free labor states understood that the southern economy depended on the trade, which exemplified the power struggle between the North and the South. The 1808 clause was a compromise in order to facilitate the ratification of the Constitution (“The Slave Trade and the Constitution,” 2012).
4. Also, how specifically is the "fugitive" regulation a compromise between southern “slave states" (i.e., VA, SC, etc.) and northern “free-labor” states (NY, MA, etc.)?
The fugitive slave clause does not seem like a compromise, but essentially it helped the federal government divest itself of responsibility. The way the clause is phrased, “slaveholding was not based either upon natural law or the common law, avoiding the implication that the Constitution itself legally sanctioned the practice,” (“Fugitive Slave Clause,” n.d.). The clause favors the slave states decisively by offering them the greater legal claim to slaves as their property under the laws of their respective states.
5. Why do you think the U.S. Constitution does not mention the words “slave” or “Blacks” even when obviously making these 3 references to the enslaved population? 
The framers included a large contingency of those who opposed slavery and wished to see it abolished. However, the ratification of the Constitution depended on the cooperation with wealthy and powerful landowners in the South who drove the American economy. By not mentioning “slave” or “Black” in the Constitution, the framers carefully avoided making slavery appear legal on the federal level, depersonalized the slavery issue, and avoided taking responsibility for the perpetuation of slavery in the South. The Constitution focuses on issues of legality without including a rights-based approach.
6. What is your new understanding of enslavement in the U.S. as a legal system (as opposed to a forced, resisted and contradictory)? 
As a legal system, slavery was presented as a labor model that business owners—namely agricultural businesses--in certain states would be allowed to use. The Constitution never originally banned slavery because of the political clout held by the slave states. By framing slavery as a matter of states’ rights, it became possible to avoid the federalist arguments that might have prevented slavery from taking root. The contradictory nature of the Constitution reveals the underlying problems and hypocrisy in American political culture.
7. After reading these 3 sections of the U.S. Constitution and F&H chapter 5, what are you left wondering about; what in the text specifically leaves questions unanswered for you and why? (Mandatory!)
These are challenging and disturbing passages of the Constitution, and commentary on these passages is equally as troubling. The American Constitution outlined rights, liberties, and freedoms, but failed to acknowledge the inherent problem with simultaneously allowing slavery to flourish. I would want to know how the Northern politicians could have been willing to make compromises that were ultimately so nefarious, and whether they could have exerted more pressure upon the southern states.



References

“Fugitive Slave Clause,” (2012). Heritage Foundation. Retrieved online: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/124/fugitive-slave-clause
“Three-Fifths Clause.” Heritage Foundation. Retrieved online: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/6/three-fifths-clause
“The Slave Trade and the Constitution,” (2012). Retrieved online: http://abolition.nypl.org/essays/us_constitution/3/
United States Constitution. Available online: http://constitutionus.com/