— Ch. 1 · Colonial Foundations And Expansion —
Slavery in the United States.
~5 min read · Ch. 1 of 7
In 1703, more than 42 percent of New York City households held enslaved people in bondage. This figure stood second only to Charleston, South Carolina, where the proportion was even higher. By 1770, the population of black people reached 397,924 out of a total colonial population of 2.17 million. Enslaved individuals worked as house servants, artisans, and laborers in cities, while others labored on farms growing indigo, rice, and tobacco. Cotton did not become a major crop until after the 1790s. In South Carolina alone, about 65 percent of the population was enslaved by 1720. Planters who held twenty or more slaves cultivated commodity crops using forced labor. The institution spread unevenly across colonies, with 14,867 enslaved people living in New England, representing just three percent of that region's population. Meanwhile, 347,378 lived in the five Southern Colonies, making up thirty-one percent of their total population.
Constitutional Compromises And Politics
The Three-Fifths Clause designated enslaved persons as three-fifths of an individual for congressional apportionment and federal taxation purposes. Delegates from Southern states argued that slaves should be counted fully, while Northern delegates insisted they count nothing at all. This compromise strengthened political power for slaveholding states within Congress and the Electoral College. James Madison of Virginia negotiated Section Two of Article One to include this provision. Between George Washington's election and Abraham Lincoln's, fifty out of seventy-two years featured a slaveholder as president. Every person elected to a second term during that entire period owned slaves. Most Supreme Court justices appointed in those decades were also slave owners. The Fugitive Slave Clause required states to return escaped individuals to their claimed owners. No state could prevent such returns once an escapee reached free soil. Salmon P. Chase later considered these acts unconstitutional because he viewed them as compacts among states rather than grants of federal power.