The Dred Scott decision embodied how the debates over slavery held unique potential to deepen Americans’ awareness of historical distance. In his decision, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney accepted the historical grounds of debate that had been prepared through decades of interpretive emphasis on the historical explication. He then argued that because the founders had not considered blacks as citizens in 1787, blacks could not be citizens in 1857. In this reading, Taney forcefully rejected the antislavery idea that the progress of moral insight demanded new constitutional readings. However, in their dissenting opinions, John McLean and Benjamin Curtis gave official credence to much of that antislavery idea. They suggested that the Constitution could be adapted in light of original expectations of abolition. These opinions, along with political and popular responses to the decision, accelerated a growing sense that more than just chronological difference separated nineteenth-century Americans from their revolutionary predecessors. In their appeals to the founding era, the justices and their respondents highlighted unmistakable historical differences between that past and their present.

This chapter shifts the focus to the Constitution by tracking the emergence of historical readings of the Constitution and showing how debates over slavery drew attention to the historical realities of change since and distance from the founding era. The very act of producing a written constitution initiated this development. At first, the move to see the new Constitution as archival contributed to its status as a sacred document, but that move also had the potential to rapidly desacralize the Constitution by revealing that its roots rested in a distinct temporal setting. The death of James Madison in 1836 sparked efforts to publish and use his writings to interpret the Constitution. The slavery debates shaped that usage. Some abolitionists followed William Lloyd Garrison in using Madison’s Papers to damn the Constitution, but many antislavery constitutionalists advanced interpretations that emphasized the framers’ anticipation of eventual emancipation. Coupled with a stress on slavery’s unexpected spread and the sudden rise of the Slave Power, these antislavery accounts of original expectation cultivated a new sense of temporal dislocation from America’s most useful past.