Slavery's constitution

Waldsreicher argues that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document. The Constitutional Convention participants debated it hotly behind closed doors, but in the end most presented a united front to the public on the desirability of ratifying the constitution. Most important of Waldstreicher's critiques - which aren't new, though he gathers all of them up in one place here - is that the 3/5s clause gave a lot of power to the Southern states, in both their representation in the House of Representatives, their electoral votes for president, and, indirectly through the president, in the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

A very good, succinct book. Perhaps argues a bit too strongly that the Constitution was pro-slavery, but nonetheless makes it clear the role that slavery played in the convention, the document, and the ratification process.

Waldsreicher argues that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document. The Constitutional Convention participants debated it hotly behind closed doors, but in the end most presented a united front to the public on the desirability of ratifying the constitution. Most important of Waldstreicher's critiques - which aren't new, though he gathers all of them up in one place here - is that the 3/5s clause gave a lot of power to the Southern states, in both their representation in the House of Representatives, their electoral votes for president, and, indirectly through the president, in the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

A very good, succinct book. Perhaps argues a bit too strongly that the Constitution was pro-slavery, but nonetheless makes it clear the role that slavery played in the convention, the document, and the ratification process.