Compromise, Gradualism, and Liberty

"So, Spaniard, we shall go to Rome together and have bloody adventures. And the great whore will suckle us until we are fat and happy and can suckle no more. And then, when enough men have died, perhaps you will have your freedom."
--Proximo (Gladiator)

The Left often declares that the Constitution was developed by a group of racists and slaveowners, presumably to discredit the legitimacy of the design. While it is certainly true that some signees were pro-slavery, other signees opposed slavery (Benjamin Franklin notably among them).

Moreover, all 13 states subsequently ratified the Constitution, including states with significant anti-slavery sentiment.

The accurate statement is that the Constitution was developed despite significant opposition to slavery.

So why did we do it? If the Constitution was intended by the framers to put the principles of the Declaration into practice, then why did people who strongly believed in liberty sign off on an incomplete expression of the Declaration's principles?

The reason lies in common outcomes of political calculation: compromise and gradualism.

Madison and others present at the time argued that compromises with respect to slavery were necessary to secure the ratification of the Constitution, lest slave-holding states would have bolted the Constitutional Convention. Many in the anti-slavery camp probably determined that, absent a central government that was stronger than the one enumerated by the Articles of Confederation, the likelihood of ever bringing the Constitution into complete harmony with the Declaration was remote. "We'll compromise now," they reasoned, "and then gradually amend the Constitution in service of eventual abolition of slavery."

Unfortunately, the Three-Fifths Compromise and visions to gradually undo it cost the lives and liberties of millions of individuals. Despite wars and countless legislative remedies, it can be argued that the ill effects of that original compromise are still being felt today.

Where would we be today had the original anti-slave founders stood their ground? If they had possessed more resolve with respect to their principles, perhaps we would have gotten it right the first time.

History suggests that compromising liberty today with the intent of gradually reclaiming it tomorrow is a losing strategy--one that enslaves rather than frees.

Unfortunately, we have yet to learn that lesson.