Democrats’ Appropriation of the Name “Abolition Amendment” Is Misleading and Problematic

Democrats’ recent attempt to brand their proposal as the “Abolition Amendment” obscures the term’s established meaning and appropriates language created by the Humane Party years earlier. While removing the 13th Amendment’s punishment clause is necessary, it is not abolition — not when the slavery of non-human beings remains fully intact. By co-opting a name that already denotes the complete end of slavery for all creatures, the proposal risks misleading the public and diluting a central pillar of the animal rights movement.

Cannon at Gettysburg National Military Park | photo by Humane Herald staff

Abolition Academy: The “Slave State vs. Free State” Concern

The Abolition Amendment was designed to be passed and ratified at the federal level, thereby ending slavery and emancipating all animals throughout the United States of America. But with a simple modification of the text, the Abolition Amendment can also be enacted at the state level. The Humane Party expressly encourages activists to pursue abolition at the state level, even before sufficient numbers have been attained to achieve victory at the national level. However, as the Compromise of 1820 (“Missouri Compromise”) marks its 200th anniversary, it is worth examining a concern associated with the state-by-state approach.