conservatism: liberty, self-government, and political moderation." here's the cover of the book. was on this cover? >> guest: this is, this is a depiction of union from, a double depiction of union and liberty that's in the federal capital building. i think about 1869. >> host: you write a lot about edmund burke. he was edmund burke? when did he live, et cetera try to edmund burke was a great come one of the greatest british statesman. he was born in 1729, died in 1797. he was a member of the way party. he's most known -- way party. he's known for reflections on revolutioonthe revolution in frh was published in 1790. and it is an angry attack on the french revolution, on the french revolution as.

he denounced hi them because he regards the french revolution which, of course, is undertaken in the name of liberty, equality, fraternity. he regards it as a great threat to freedom. interestingly a defense of freedom probably understood but it also becomes a classic statement in a way founding statement of the modern conservative principles. >> host: who was russell kirk that you write about? >> guest: russell kirk is a very important american thinker. russell kirk published a book in 1953 called the conservative mind. this was come his book was part of a kind of renaissance of conservative thinking and united states after world war ii. in the wake of world war ii there were two huge threats that jolted a kind of conservatism to being in the united states.

one was a mass expansion of the statist, and the other was the rise of soviet communism. he represents me the greatest representative of the social conservative strand. his book, the conservative mind ranges across the whole of america from the founding -- sorry, not just america but the modern era, america and great britain. from edmund burke forward, shut up active and influential and important the conservatives. has been in the making of the modern mind. >> host: one of the peace before we get into some issues. the federalist, you described as a masterpiece of american political thought. what was the federalist and why do we call it that? >> guest: well, the federalist is actually it was originally 85 newspaper articles. is the brainchild of alexander

hamilton who shortly after the philadelphia convention, the summer of 1787, had concluded that the proposal for a new constitution. hamilton said this constitution was then sent -- is going to be a close battle in hamilton and listed james madison and john jay to write a series of newspaper articles in order to with the practical intention of persuading voters of new york to ratify this new document. this new charter of government, this new constitution. so the federalists had a very practical aim. win ratification, each one a. in the new york newspapers. but at the same time hamilton along with madison and j. clearly thought that part of persuading the fellow citizens to ratify the constitution involved helping their fellow citizens understand that the constitution embodied, put into

practice ever so principles of self-government. so in the course of seeking to persuade fellow citizens, hamilton along with madison and jay provide us with in my view a remarkably incisive account both what those principles of self-government are and why this particular translation of in practice deserves our allegiance. so we have our three-legged stool. how does the current conservative movement, republican party, et cetera, look when you look at the three-legged stool? >> guest: it looks like this. here you can see a bit of burke. here you can see a bit of devotion to a part of a of the constitutional tradition. here you can see something of the impact of edinburg. and what i tried to show in the book is that we need all three.

there's wisdom in edmund burke that we need to recover. there's a great deal of wisdom in the american constitutional founding and there's a great deal of wisdom in the high points of post-world war ii american conservatism. so i especially emphasize in the book it takes a lot of people back both on the left and the right. it's essential to this to, kind of a conservative tradition, much-maligned virtue of political moderation. >> my book seeks to show that actually political moderation is a venerable conservative virtue. i perfectly well aware that if you say, if you were to say to progressives, political moderation is the very essence of conservatism you risk being laughed out of the room and shouted out. but to talk about the conservatives are extremist, obstructionist and absolutists. and i perfectly well aware that

if you didn't gather a room full of conservatives, that local moderation is what the essence of conservatism, you'll be greeted with stony stares and icy indignation. and when the silence is broken it will be declared no, no, no. what'was needed as not moderati. what's needed is wavering devotion to and then you principles and greater purity in the ranks. so i'm aware that what needs to be recovered, not regarded as a virtue by many. in fact, you could say that in this polarized age, one thing that progressives and conservatives act progressives and conservatives acted to agree upon is that moderation is not a conservative virtue. but i disagree and i think i find support for my view in burke, the federalist, post-world war ii american conservatism.

one of the point on this. back in 1790 in reflections on the revolution of france, burke writes that i know where that defenders of schemes of liberty soberly limited, schemes of liberty soberly limited to be accused of lacking fidelity to the cause because they soberly limit the claims of government. he says i'm aware that moderation will be stigmatized as the virtue of cowards, compromise will be stigmatized as the prudence of traders. more than 200 years ago so it was, today, moderation aligned. and my guess is 200 years from now it will be easy to malign this virtue. so i guess i should add then, but i also don't understand this virtue the way that it's commonly understood. if i understood moderation to be sticking to the middle of the

road, submitting two different compromise for the sake of compromise, then i might agree that it can be contemptible. the moderation that i'm talking about, because i find it's implied in the thinking of burke and the american founding, post-world war ii american conservatism, is the commitment to recognizing conflicting and for the principles and working to accommodate balanced and calibrate so as to do as much justice as possible to these principles house of representatives peter berkowitz, who in your view has done a good job with your vision of political moderation today? >> guest: well, you know, this book grew out of a concern that very few people -- i began to think about this in late 2008,

early 2009 as candidate obama and it was becoming clerk candidate obama over 2008 is going to win a historic victory. here you could see the social concerns on the one hand, social conservatives, traditional morality, even disgust with libertarian or limited government conservatives. you could see, you can hear and limited government conservatives expressing their disgust and patients with the social conservatives. and i began to wonder is this, how healthy is this. i quickly concluded this is quite unhealthy. around the same time, january, february 2009 from professor writers -- prominent writers began to declare conservatism is dead for 40 years, at least.

i began to wonder, was there a way to bring together social conservatism and libertarianism that wasn't just the kind of -- was there a principled, or a set of principles around which social concerns were devoted to traditional morality, devoted to conservative principles of limitations around which they can rally? and i saw the tea party movement arise. and one of the things interesting about the tea party movement is that it contained a disproportionate number of social conservatives. social conservatives were focused on limiting or we limiting government. then finally in the run up to campaign 2012, eight, nine, 10 republicans candidates for the party's nomination seeking it

seems week after week, seeking to stake out the most extreme and cindy airey positions on the political spectrum. so all of this compelled me to return to the sources. so in other words, it was kind of dissatisfaction. today, however, i do see some promising developments but it seems meet the youngest generation of republicans. i think especially of paul ryan. i think of marco rubio. i think of eric cantor. they seem to be much more easily to simultaneously embody the genuine and proper conservative concern with traditional morality. along with a genuine and proper conservative concerned with limited government or individual liberty. i should add this is a real challenge for conservatives. is concerned with liberty on the one hand and tradition on the

other, this goes back to edmund burke, one of the things of the revolution in france is liberty depends and gives proper respect to order an virtue because it's through traditional ways. it's through maintaining order tickets through the cultivation of virtues that we form individuals who are capable of maintaining freedom from maintaining a free society. burke understood there were -- liberty in the first place means doing as you wish. tradition in the first place means doing as authority as doing a tradition said you ought to do. sometimes what you wish to do, and you wish, what profession which to enter, he wished to raise your children differs from what traditionalists are taught. burke saw this. today, however, again with you,

ryan, cantor i think understand that the claims of tradition, the claims of liberty and they are at work trying to put together policies that reform agenda that reflect the mutual dependence of tradition, also a lot of tensions. >> host: what you think of rental? >> guest: i like rand paul's energy. i admire rand paul's focus on limited government. i worry that rand paul will take his focus on limited government too far and not fully appreciate the claims of tradition, order and virtue. >> host: and finally, peter berkowitz, why do you have the word constitutional in your? >> guest: i have the word constitution there because in our tradition, the american tradition, the principles of liberties that i think are so important to conserve are

inscribed in our in other words, i thi principles of liberty are excellent principles. i would argue for them on independent philosophical grounds. but we also can argue for them because they are part of our tradition. my view, our traditions have been ascribed these wise pencils and that gives us another ground for defending them. for being grateful to them for defending them and for developing and reform agenda today that embodies them. >> host: "constitutional conservatism" is the name of the book. written by peter berkowitz. the subtitle, liberty, self government and political moderation. this is booktv on location at stanford university. >> stanford university law professor jenny martinez talks about efforts in the late 18th century to bend the international slave trade, which argues laid the foundations for the modern international human rights movement.

booktv sat down with professor martinez at stanford university in california. this is about 20 minutes. >> host: and booktv from stanford university continues. and now we're joined by law professor jenny martinez whose book, "the slave trade and the origins of international rights law" is our next topic. or faster martinez, when did the u.s. slave trade start and how did it start? >> guest: the u.s. was involved in the slave trade from the moment that we sort of began as a colony of britain, and, indeed, one of the interesting things about u.s. history is that in the constitutional convention there was a compromise between the states that had slaves and the states that didn't. and the u.s. constitution said that the federal congress couldn't take any action against the slave trade and till 1808. the u.s. at the first moment it

could in 1807, president johnson sent legislation to congress and participation in the slave trade by u.s. ships and u.s. persons the and congress passed the. so in 1808 the u.s. prohibited the slave trade which was a long time before of course slavery itself ended in the trendy. but the issues were seen as different and even southerners were in support of banning the slave trade. >> host: why were southerners in support? >> guest: one was that it was perceived as the more unjust or inhumane part of the traffic. but also they had an economic self-interest. they already owned slaves and the environment in the u.s. is such that slave mortality was not a site in southern plantations as it was in places like google or brazil where slaves didn't live for very long because of the environment and the diseases. here in the u.s. if they were well treated, as well treated as they could be, they would live for a decent lifespan.

and so slave owners proceed it would increase the bite of the sites they already own because it would limit the influx of slaves and the ability of their neighbors to buy new slave. so it was an odd coalition. >> host: you have a chart in your book. it shows, and i want to use the word importation of slaves, correct? what is the showing? >> guest: there's a real strong spike the number of slaves entering the u.s. right before we ban it because everyone knew that as soon as the clock turned in 1808 that congress was going to ban slate trade. >> host: the other half of your book is about the international human rights law. when did human rights laws start becoming part of this discussion on the slave trade? >> guest: really around the turn of the 19th century but what's interesting is that people think that international human rights law is entirely a product of the 20th century. that is, in most of the

conventional accounts people say it was right after world war ii. so the holocaust happened. as news of that came out, a bunch of things happen right after world war ii. there were the nuremberg trials of the knots you were cruel. similar -- someone trials in the -- similar trials in the northeast. this is when international law start to look at human rights issues. i said it was early because in connection with the slave trade that international law was first used for human rights purpose. and so in the early 19th century starting in 1881 countries like the u.s., britain was another country that and the slave trade around and began to spread throughout because she's that had been engaged in the slave trade but this is no longer a practice they wan wanto participate in to it was perceived as violate natural right, same ideas of rights that underpin the u.s. revolution and the revolution in france. the declaration of independence

says we hold these truths to be of self-evident, all men are created equal and about by the greater with certain unalienable rights. there was a tension between that and the existing slavery but those ideas of natural rights were spreading throughout the atlantic world. and also there were some religious revival movements. the quakers among other religious groups were very active politically and they proceed slavery and the slave trade to be morally wrong. so as those became more active in civil society, it started put pressure on the government to say we've got to stop the slave trade. because it was an international problem. all the countries of europe that were engaged in towels on the ocean were participating in it. it wasn't something that just one country could start. so even if the u.s. said we're banning the slave trade, or even if britain said we are banning the slave trade combat wasn't going to be enough because spain, portugal, france, the netherlands them these other

countries were still going to pick up the slack. they're going to begin picking up the slaves from africa and the -- equipped a became apparent that in order to eradicate this practice they -- was going to be some international cooperation. so abolitionist put pressure on governments and especially the british government was receptive to the pressure. they begin lobbying other governments to enter into treaties that would prohibit the slave trade. and at first those treaties like many modern international human rights treaties were what we might call international relations cheap talk here that is, they said slavery is wrong. you want to ban the slave trade, but they included no enforcement mechanism. but pretty quickly the tide turned and they said this won't be enough. so the british government began pushing for enforcement measures. sacred treaties starting in 1817 that not only ban the slave trade but created international courts to enforce the