The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, drafted in 1669, were a legal document that established a dual-province government for the colony. While the Constitutions introduced progressive ideas such as religious tolerance, they also promoted aristocracy and slavery. These elements reflected the less liberal aspects of the document compared to John Locke's later works.
Aristocratic Structure
The Constitutions introduced a hierarchical government structure, promoting aristocracy
in the Province of Carolina. Charles II's original charter prevented the proprietors from granting titles already in use in England, such as Earl or Baron. As a result, they created new titles, cassique and landgrave, which were passed down from father to son. These nobles were granted privileges, such as being tried only in Chief Justice's Court and being found guilty by a jury of their peers. The document also introduced a hereditary serfdom system, with members called "leetmen," who were under the command and jurisdiction of noblemen.
Slavery Provisions
The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina included provisions that promoted slavery in North America. Article 110 granted absolute power to slaveholders over their negro slaves, regardless of their opinion or religion. This provision allowed slaveholders to exercise absolute power of life and death over their slaves. Additionally, the Constitutions held that being a Christian did not alter the civil dominion of a master over his slaves. These elements reflected the less liberal aspects of the document, contrasting with Locke's later works, such as the Two Treatises of Government.
Impact and Legacy
The promotion of aristocracy and slavery within the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina left a lasting impact on the region. The document influenced the social and political landscape of North America, contributing to the establishment of a hierarchical society. Despite the suspension of the Constitutions in 1690, their legacy persisted, shaping the development of the colony and its future states. The document's complex legacy reflects both progressive ideas of religious tolerance and regressive elements of hierarchy and slavery, highlighting the challenges faced in its implementation.
