Equality, Slavery and the Founding

Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government

Available on-demand

Grapple with the profound tensions of the American experiment. Confront the harrowing paradox of liberty and bondage as the Union expands. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, founding director of Notre Dame’s Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government and Tocqueville Professor of Political Science, is your guide to navigating the intellectual struggle between popular sovereignty and natural rights during the rise of the cotton gin. Reclaim the moral clarity necessary for self-government in this vital historical inquiry.

To read along with the class, enjoy the following:

Stephen Douglas, Speech at Chicago, July 9, 1858, in Johannsen (ed.), The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 22–36
Abraham Lincoln, Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise, Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854
Class slides can be found here.

In what sense are “all men . . . created equal”? What is human liberty? What is prosperity, and how is wealth created? In 1776 these questions were addressed and acted upon in ways that have created the modern world. Commemorating the 250th anniversary, explore 1776 and the ideas that made the modern world, focusing on the Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

1776 and the Ideas That Made the Modern World, taught by Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Professor of Political Science and Concurrent Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame and the Founding Director of ND’s Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government, and James Otteson, John T. Ryan Jr. Professor of Business Ethics in the Mendoza College of Business is sponsored by the Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government at the University of Notre Dame. To find out more, please visit their website.

To sign up to connect with the Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government by receiving their email newsletters, please use this subscription form.

The Logic of Natural Liberty

Professor Vincent Phillip Muñoz grounds the American Founding in the concept of natural equality. Drawing on James Wilson and Thomas Jefferson, he explains that equality is rooted in a shared human nature characterized by the capacity for self-governance. However, “natural liberty” is not a license for unrestrained action. Wilson argues that liberty is bounded by the “moral law of nature”—the law of right and wrong discerned through reason. This moral law dictates that while one is free to direct their own life, they are not free to violate the rights of others. Thus, the American concept of liberty is inherently ethical, resting on objective moral truths rather than mere personal whim.

The Dilemma of Consent

Because all men are created equal, no person has a natural right to rule another; therefore, legitimate government must be based on consent. Vincent Phillip Muñoz explores the “So What?” of this principle through the lens of political participation and the “right to leave.” Consent is often tacit—demonstrated by staying within a country and enjoying its protections. However, the right to exit is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny. Using the hypothetical of a 17-year-old in Moscow facing an unjust conscription, Vincent Phillip Muñoz concludes that the Founders’ philosophy would grant the individual the right to leave the regime, even if it means losing the right to return. Consent is not just about the act of voting; it is about the fundamental freedom to choose the political community to which one owes allegiance.

The Constitutional Compromise

The lecture addresses the tension between Founding principles and the reality of slavery, utilizing Professor Michael Zucker’s framework that the Constitution treated slavery as “legal but not legitimate.” The Founders used federalism to keep the Union intact, leaving slavery as a state-level issue because a unified national stance was politically impossible. Vincent Phillip Muñoz highlights a critical nuance: the word “slavery” was intentionally omitted to avoid “sullying” the document. Furthermore, in Federalist 54, James Madison used a “southern brother” as a mouthpiece to defend the three-fifths clause, refusing to defend the institution under his own name—a signal of his recognition of its inherent injustice.

The Great Debate

The core of the lecture focuses on the 1858 clash between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. Douglas advocated for “popular sovereignty,” a procedural view of democracy where the majority in each territory decides whether to permit slavery. Lincoln, however, argued that this position destroyed the moral foundation of the Union. Lincoln maintained that majority rule lacks legitimacy if it is not rooted in human equality. If a majority can vote to enslave a minority, they have abandoned the very principle—equality—that gives the majority the right to rule. For Lincoln, saving the Union required making it “worthy of the saving” by realigning it with the Declaration of Independence.

This philosophical clash highlights the necessity of anchoring political procedures in moral truths, a theme reflected in the speaker’s own words.

The Moral Boundary of Liberty: True liberty is not the absence of restraint but the freedom to act within the objective framework of the moral law, preventing the descent of democracy into mere “might makes right.”
The Prerequisite of Exit: The legitimacy of a political community rests on the ability of its members to provide or withhold consent, a right most clearly exercised through the freedom to emigrate—as illustrated by the moral failure of the Berlin Wall.
The Strategy of Constitutional Federalism: The Union’s survival initially required an “agree to disagree” principle, treating slavery as a state-level legal reality rather than a national moral right to ensure the country did not fracture at its inception.
Equality as the Anchor of Democracy: Majority rule lacks legitimacy without the foundational principle of human equality; without this anchor, the majority has no moral claim to govern and democracy becomes a tool of despotism.
The Standard of a Worthy Union: A political system is not justified by its stability or peace alone, but by its commitment to justice and the moral principles that make it worthy of preservation.

“The natural right to liberty means you’re free to do what you want within the bounds of… the moral law of nature.” — Vincent Phillip Muñoz
“Just because you’re born in a regime in a country doesn’t mean you have to stay there.” — Vincent Phillip Muñoz
“Lincoln’s goal is to make America worth saving and the apple is this idea of popular sovereignty.” — Vincent Phillip Muñoz
“Consent follows from equality.” Vincent Phillip Muñoz
“The constitution clearly anticipates the existence of slavery; it’s not to say that the constitution is pro-slavery, but the constitution itself is federalism in terms of slavery.” Vincent Phillip Muñoz
“The politician can only operate within the realm of acceptable popular opinion if you actually want to govern.” Vincent Phillip Muñoz
“The foundation of majority rule is equality because we’re all equal.” Vincent Phillip Muñoz

Equality, Slavery and the Founding

More Like This

Downsides of Markets

Justice, Beneficence, and the “Well-Governed Society”

The Nature and Causes of Wealth

The Legacy of Natural Rights

Federalism and the Decline of Natural Rights

Natural Rights at the Founding

The Declaration and the Civil War

Keeping the Dome Safe

The Ideas That Made the Modern World

Brave New World: Great Power Politics in a Future with Peer Hegemons

Subscribe to our Newsletter