After reading William Lloyd Garrison's "On the Constitution and the Union" and Frederick Douglass' "The Constitution of the U.S.: Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?," which interpretation of the Constitution is more convincing? Was the Constitution fundamentally a pro-slavery document, as Garrison argued, or an anti-slavery document that had been misinterpreted and misused, as Douglass contended?

William Lloyd Garrison, in "On the Constitution and the Union," argued that the Constitution was a "covenant with death and an agreement with hell." He believed it was inherently pro-slavery due to clauses like the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the allowance of the slave trade for 20 years. For Garrison, these provisions made the Constitution an immoral document that explicitly protected and perpetuated slavery, leading him to advocate for disunion.

Frederick Douglass, in "The Constitution of the U.S.: Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?," initially agreed with Garrison but later changed his view. He contended that the Constitution, when read literally and in light of its preamble ("We the People," "establish justice," "secure the blessings of liberty"), was an anti-slavery document. Douglass pointed out that the word "slavery" never appears in the text, and the framers used euphemisms like "persons held to service or labor," which he argued could be interpreted to apply to indentured servants as well as enslaved people. He believed the document's spirit and potential were for liberty, and that it could be used as a tool to fight slavery from within the political system.

Douglass's interpretation is more convincing because it offered a pragmatic and powerful framework for abolitionist action. While Garrison accurately highlighted the undeniable pro-slavery compromises embedded in the original document, his call for disunion offered no path to ending slavery for those still enslaved in the South. Douglass's textual analysis, emphasizing the absence of the word "slavery" and the aspirational language of liberty and justice, allowed abolitionists to argue that the Constitution's true intent was freedom, and that slavery was a violation of its principles. This perspective provided a moral and legal basis for challenging slavery through political and judicial means, ultimately contributing to the constitutional amendments that abolished slavery.