Why Did Our U.S. Constitution Permit Importation of Slaves Until 1808?

The short answer: To allow, in slave-owning states, a “breeding stock” of enslaved Africans to add a new generation of American-born black slaves to reach sexual maturity. The Constitution was written in 1787; 1808 was 21 years later; and by that time, slave-children could procreate, albeit as adult slaves.

What is the constitutional language in question?  It appears—of all things—as an “Article II” power—that is a power of Congress. How is that? Because slaves were brought to the U.S. as a type of commerce— human merchandise. Article II confers upon Congress the essential power to regulate commerce among the states and between the U.S. and foreign nations.

Here is how the Constitution addressed the slave trade in Art. II, Sec. 9:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit [pause … that is a polite way of saying slaves brought in trade] shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation [pause … think of a “tariff” in today’s context on steel and such, i.e., merchandise], not exceeding ten dollars for each Person [pause … the preceding language treats slaves as articles of commerce but ends by referring to slaves as “person”].

So, is this just historical trivia? Not to me. 

For one, our nation made a bargain with the devil by allowing for the trafficking of human beings—worse yet, of blacks who could be thought of less than human by the white ruling class. 

For two, this short little paragraph reflects our nation’s unresolved treatment of blacks as full-fledged “persons” but also stained by their color. 

And finally, the question I am working through on my research: America has always based immigration on race, to the severe disadvantage of people who were not white. The exceptional period was 1965-2016. In Donald Trump, we simply reverted to our long-held traditions. He is us, and we are him, truth to tell.

A post-script: As students in my two classes on immigration and race have already noted, it’s not exactly correct to say that slaves were immigrants. Point well taken. But read Art. II, Sec. 9 again, where it alternately refers to “migration or importation.” Even in 1787, our constitutional fathers could not quite get a handle on this. My research shows it was just part of a two-centuries pattern of betraying our constitutional promise that “all people are created equal.” That is our ideal, our quest. It is not our natural practice.