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 ban.

more than a century before the nuremberg tribunal and these records created by treaties to promote these human rights objectives promoting the slave trade. if a ship were caught common gauge and illegal slave trade it would be brought before one of the international courts, and if they found out that it was covered by the treaty, it was a spanish ship for some of the treaty between britain and spain saying we are ending the slave trade, and what happened is the slaves would be freed and the ship would be auctioned off. the money would be split between the sea captain that brought the ship and other governments that were involved. cities international courts as i recount in the book heard some 80,000 slaves off of captured huge number and scale of the -- >> host: what wit was the name f this international courts tragedy mixed. treaties given different names.

they're a bunch of bilateral treaties between britain and other countries. spain, portugal, the netherlands, with initial country. the u.s. essentially joined during the civil war which i'll tell you about in a minute but they were called the mixed commissions are sometimes the next courts. the reason they were called mixed was because they involve judges from different countries. it would be a british judge. if they couldn't agree they would toss a coin and they would pick a third judge from one of those two countries to help you decide the case. the u.s. initially was reluctant to participate in the tribunal system for a variety of reasons. some of which had some of which have do with domestic politics to the treaty came before the u.s. senate in 1824 right before a hotly contested presidential election. the secretary of state at the time was running for president and there was a lot that sort of politics that went around it. there was also concerned about

the british and one of the richest -- the british were using this abolitionism campaign as a kind of advancement for their desires to control the oceans. had been a long source of tension between the u.s. and britain. one because of the war of 1812 was the way the british navy would board and american ships, which conscript americans on board and say hey, actually we don't think you are really americans. you are british and guess what, we're tracking and the british navy to fight against the war against france. this a long been tension between u.s. and britain. it was not popular in the u.s. it did go to a different version, the treaty went to the senate to the senate attached a bunch of reservations or changes to it. including a provision that the cases would be tried in american courts rather than in these

international courts. they changed the geographical scope and the british were not willing to go along with that. the treaty failed in 1820s. the u.s. and britain cooperated for a while, the 1830s were british ships and american navy ships would patrol off the coast of africa looking for illegal slave ships of the the country. at the british happened to catch an american slave trade ship, the bring it over to the american navy and vice versa. that was kind of an unofficial cooperation, the two navies it worked out on their own on the other side of world. eventually the government said hey, what are you guys doing? there's not a treaty that covers this. this isn't something the government what to do, and so one of the consequences was that because of the u.s. wasn't able to consistently invest in naval protection to enforce the ban on slave trading by an american ships, they were time period when there was a lot of ships

flying the american flag that were engaged in illegal slave trade. and so wasn't until 1862 in the middle of the civil war that president lincoln's administration sent the treaty up to the senate and it was ratified them and then the u.s. joined the system of international courts. and dramatically right after the u.s. joined the system, there was only one small bit of a slave trade that was very active in which was the trade to cuba. and was carried on heavily in american ships even though it was against american law and american law provided the death penalty for engaging in slave trading. even the confederate constitution prohibited the slave trade. but as soon as the u.s. joined this treaty system making it possible for britain and other countries to police it as well, the last many branch of the slave trade to cuba dropped precipitously off. by 1865 transatlantic slave trade was really over. there were no more slaves being taken from africa to the new

world. >> host: between 1808 -- from 18 '08 on, how heavy was the smuggling, the illegal smuggling tragedy depends where you're looking at. the u.s. there was not a lot of smuggling initially into the u.s. after 1808. there was some but the measures on shore were pretty effective. if you're caught he would be punished in some way. only one person ever received the death penalty for engaging in slave trading. what it was enough of a deterrent that they were not a huge bout of imports into the u.s. on the other hand, cuba and brazil, which is the country that they were participants in the treaty, they sort of legally banned the slave trade, they denied any kind of effective enforcement on land. antedated the governments were pretty corrupt. so-so at that time period from 1808 to the 1860s in cuba in 1850s and brazil, there was a lot of illegal smuggling of new slave. some of it wasn't all that

covert. it's the government in a particular region was very crude. it might even advertise in a newspaper where the slave markets were going to be held. what's interesting is the international law played a role in ending of it. so in brazil in the 1850s there was a big debate and the british were putting strong pressure on them to take stronger measures against the smuggling of new slaves into the country. even a few british ships fired some shots and harbor. there was a debate in the brazilian parliament. one of the members of parliament said look, everyone has joined the system to are we alone to stand outside the civilized world and allow the state to continue? and they saw themselves as a civilized country and wanted to be part of the unity of nation's. and as a consequence in the early 1850s, brazil passed more effective legislation that started enforcing it. and so that was basically in

amnesty, in relation to the international pressure and the international legal machine. >> host: ivies mixed commissions, where they forgotten by history or with the use as models for later international human rights or treaties drafted what's interesting is they were remembered for a while. and in the early 1940s, during world war ii there was a judge on the permanent court of international justice which is the court, the court of league of nations. and the predecessor to the international court of justice that took this under the u.n. today and since in the hague to hear and financial disputes. that commission is right report about what should be done with the war criminals after world war ii ended. is report suggested what ultimate became the nuremberg trial for him when he talks about precedents for international courts he mentions the slave trade tribunals. there were a variety of groups that were active in the 1930s working on human rights issues

proposing forms of international court. and they also mention slave trade tribunal as one of the historic examples of international courts. the focus and 1940s is a lot more on crimes against peace. that is, what was prosecutor at the nuremberg for the crime of ration aggressive warfare which do not see regime had engaged in. that would look bac back and wih the nuremberg was all about the human rights violations, about the crimes against many of the war crimes. but actually it was that kind of aggression that was more of the focus. so that is me one of the reasons why in the aftermath of world war ii the slave trade tribunal, although they were so remember in the '30s and early '40s start to fade out of memory as they were replaced by nuremberg which had a slightly different focus. they really were sort of forgotten by us was the national law, by international legal scholars. the storms of the slave trade have recognized them as a part of evolution of the slave trade, but people who study

international law have largely forgotten them. >> host: where did you find your interest in the subject transfer is interesting. i was at the edge of international courts of tribunal. i've worked at the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia which was created by the security council an in the 1990s to do with war crimes for bosnia and croatia and then kosovo. and i worked there on one of the genocide trials. and so i was very interested in international courts. one of things we did when i was there at the court in the hague was would look a lot of the nuremberg and post-world war ii presidents. there wasn't a lot of of the case law and what lawyers do is you see what the president said. most were from norberg or the other trials that occurred in europe following world war ii. but the history of international courts and where the idea came from, and after i left practicing law commit come to be a professor at stanford teaching international law i was doing some research into the history of international courts and

looking at things like in the 1790s, the u.s. and britain entered into a treaty settling claims from the revolution were the crater international tribunals. i was at the conference and i was talking to a judge on the special court for sierra leone which is the court that tried charles taylor for his crimes, and tried other human rights crimes and is one of these new international criminal court's that have grown up in the past decade or so. he asked what i was researching but i said i was looking at courts in 19 city. he said of course you know about the first international criminal court, the slave trade tribunal does that in sierra leone. and i said no, i've never heard of that. and i studied this. making it about it because the special court for sierra leone that where one of these courts that and it was part of the local lore that this court had been there. and had heard these cases and it was sort of local common knowledge but not something that people were were a proposal.

and i discovered that the british were asked to record keepers. and so the complete archives of the courts are in the british archiving unit. so it was pretty easy to see what the courts of them. >> host: and from that spark came this book, "the slave trade and the origins of international rights law." it's published by oxford. stanford law professor jenny martinez is the author. you're watching booktv on c-span2. >> visit booktv.org to watch any the program you see here online. type the author or book title in the search bar on the upper left side of the page and click search. you can also shoot anything you see on booktv.org easily by clicking sure on the upper westside of the page and selecting format. old tv streamed live online for 40 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors. booktv.org.

>> now from booktv's recent visit to dover, delaware, with the help of our local cable partner, comcast, an interview with jane calvert, author of quicker constitutionalism and the political thought of john dickinson. she exports john dickinson's contributions to american history. from his draft of the resolution of the stamp act congress to his attendance at the first continental congress in 1774. >> published by cambridge university press but it's the first comprehensive analysis of the political thought of john dickinson as it was rooted in quicker constitutional through. my interest in trembling came out of my interest in early american political theory and religion. i started out studying quakers and quakerism in the colonial period and when i got to the revolution his name kept coming up. and when i tried to research and

i couldn't find anything about him, or very little or and what was there was very conflicted and now we seem to really be able to understand his action. very few people had heard of dixons and -- dickinson today. that's in stark contract to slightly. in the years immediately after the revolution his name was better known in washington or franklin. john dickinson wrote many of america's first state papers. many of the highest level documents, policy documents, constitutions, legislations. but he also wrote many more things for ordinary american people. and spoke to them in a way that very few other leaders did. these include newspaper articles, poems and america's first patriotic song. dickinson first and then international political scene

during the stamp act controversy and he was phenomenal to of the stamp act congress and for the stamp act to resolve the stamp act focus. then he became famous when he wrote his letters from a farm in pennsylvania in 1768. these letters make in america's first popular idol. he was known around the colonies and around the atlantic world. the french love him. the british considered him a spokesman for the american cause. he was really the leader up until about 1775 when the tone of the revolution change. dickinson always advocated peaceful resistance. and the fact he was the very first american to advocate a national program of civil disobedience. so breaking unjust laws peacefully and protesting to get change pics we advocated this for the stamp act and it was appealed not only because of his action come and he advocated the same course of action, peaceful

resistance to the townshend ac acts. and he believed that the best measures were constitutional, were peaceful and that nobody, no persons or property shall be damaged or destroyed. when the town -- the tone of the resistance of changed, his moderate stance fell out of favor. and his popularity waned. but even though he became less popular he was no less respected. and so just less than a month before the progression of independence was issued, he was on the committee to write america's first constitution, the articles of confederation. this is a remarkable document, the version he wrote was quite different from the one that was actually implemented in 1781. is 1776 version had several notable characteristics. one is that it established a strong central government for the new states. and it also had a religious

liberty clause. and this clause was remarkable because it was the first clause, the first writing in an anglo-american constitution that included gender, so dickinson actually provided for the religious liberty of women. dickinson's quaker background played a significant role in all of his writings and all of his actions. dickinson was not the quaker but he was raised among quakers. he lived with quakers. is so any family with with quakers. very strong quaker women, informed his political theory. and so we advocated civil disobedience he was advocating a quaker form of resistance. when he wrote the articles of confederation with the liberty clause and include women, that was a very likely thing to do because quakers at the time were the only religious groups who are allowed their women to speak publicly and to preach. quaker women traveled around the country and even the world

preaching. and so dickinson wrote this clause and he started out by saying no person shall be molested in his or their practice of religion. but then he crossed out his or there and wrote his or her. and to signify that women should be able to practice their religion freely in quicker terms meant that women should be able to speak publicly. and women were not considered to have a public voice at this time. so in a way dickinson was very much sort of an early sentiment. and wrote this language in the constitution and, of course, it wasn't adopted. none of the provisions of his articles of confederation were adopted. on july 1 there was a vote on the declaration. dickinson was the first one to speak and he gave an eloquent speech reiterating all of his concerns he had about declaring independence.

this was a very reasonable argument. he recognized that we didn't have a government, we didn't have the constitution, we didn't have a strong army. we had no foreign support. we have no factors to make commissions. we had no common currency. we were in a very weak position. so there was a path to raise what he thought independence was a bad idea. america was very saved under the protection of the british constitution. and he wanted to retain that. but they were also philosophical questions. and he believed as other quakers did that the constitution was sacred. i didn't untouchable. it did mean unchangeable, but it meant that you should try to preserve the laws that are good and that are there and that protect people. and britain had a very long history of protecting rights. his career was quite a lustrous after that he served again and

the continental congress in 79, and then in 1781 he was elected president of delaware and dessert for a year and then was elected president of pennsylvania and hailed of those two posts for a time simultaneously. .. what later is called the connecticut compromise. he sacrificed his own reputation for the good of the country, and the refrain that he made throughout his life was that he would rather offend his countrymen by speaking the truth than see them i