>> when did the u.s. slave trade start and how did it start? >> well, the u.s. was involved in the slave trade from the moment that we sort of began as a colony of britain, and 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 until 1808. and the u.s., at the first moment it could in 1807, president jefferson, sent legislation up to congress that banned par tis nation -- participation in the slave trade by u.s. ships and u.s. persons, and come passed that. so in 1808 the u.s. prohibited the slave trade, which was a long time before, of course, slavery itself ended in the united states. but the issues were seen as

different and even southerners were in support of banning the slave trade. >> why were southerners in support of that? >> guest: a lot of different ropes. one it was perceived as the moe unjust or inhuman part of the traffic, but also they had an economic self-interest. they already owned slaves, and the environment in the u.s. was such that slave mortality was not as high in southern plantations as it was in places like cuba or brazil, where slaves really didn't live 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 deposit life span. and so slave owners perceived with ban thing slave trade that would increase the value of the slaves they owned but a it would limit the influx of slaves. so it was an odd coalition. >> you have a chart in your book here that shows the -- i want to use the word importation of

slaves. what is this showing here? >> guest: there's a real strong spike in the number of slaves entering the u.s. right before we ban it. everyone knew that as soon as that clocked turned on 1808 that congress was going to bon the slave 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? >> well, really around the turn of then 19th century. but what is really interesting is people think that international human rights law is the product of the 20th 20th century. in most hoff the congestional comes people say it was right after world were 2. so he holocaust happened. as news of that came out a butch of things happened right after world war ii, the nuremberg trials, similar trials in the far east. the u.n. was founded, universal declaration of human rights. that's the moment when people

said this is when international law started to look at human rights issues. actually it was earlier in connection with the slave trade, that international law was first used for human rights purpose, and in the early 19th century in 107 and 1808, when countries like the u.s. -- britain banned the slave trade around then -- and it gap to spread throughout the countries that had been engaged in the slave trade that this is no longary practice they wanted to participate in. it is perceived as violating natural rights, same rights that underpin the u.s. revolution and the revolution in france. the declaration of independence says can we hold this truths to be self-evident, all mean are created equal and endowd by their katey with certain inalienable right. obviously there war a tension between that and the existence of slavery but the ideas were spreading and there were religious revival moments. the quakers among other groups, were very active politically and

they perceived slavery and the slave trade to be morally wrong. so as those groups became more active in civil society, starting to put pressure on the government to say, we have to stop the slave trade, and because it was an international problem, all the countries of europe that were engaged in travels on the ocean, were participating it in it. wasn't something that just one country could stop. so even if the u.s. said, we're banning the slave trade, or even if britain banned the slave trade, that wouldn't be enough. spain, portugal, france, the netherlandss, other countries were still going to pick up the slack. they were going to begin to pick up the slaves from africa and transporting them to the new world. so it quickly became apparent that in order to eradicate this practice there would have to be international cooperation, and so abolitionists put pressure on government, and the british government was receptive to the

pressure, and they again lobbying other governments to enter into treaties that would prohibit the slave trade and at first those treaties, like many treaties, were what we might call in international relations cheap talk. that is, they said slavery is wrong, we want to ban the slave trade, but they included no enforcement mechanisms. but pretty quickly the tide turned and they said this isn't going to be enough. so the british government began pushing for enforcement measures, and they actually created treat idea starting in 1817, that not only banned the slave trade, but created international courts to enforce the ban. more than a century before the nuremberg tribunals. were to promote the human rights objective of ending the slave trade, and if a ship war caught engame in the illegal slave trade, it would be brought before an international court and if they found it was was

covered by the treaty, a spanish ship and there was a treaty between britain and spain saying we're ending the slave trade, then the slaves would be freed, and the ship would be auctioned off, and the money would be split between the sea captain, who brought the ship in, and the governments involved so these international courts heard some 600 cases and freed 80,000 slaves off of captured slave-trading ships, which i a huge number in the scale of international -- >> host: all post-1808? yes. >> what was the name of these international courts. >> guest: treaties give them different names. a butch of bilateral toronto treaties between britain and spain, port gal, netherlands, brazil, and the u.s. joined during the civil war, which i'll tell you've about in a minute. they were called the mixed commissions or the mixed courts, and the reason they were called mixed was because they involved judges from different countries. so there we would be a british

judge brazilian judge and if they couldn't agree they would toss a coin and pick a third judge to help decide the case. >> as young child i tasted the bitter fruits of segregation and racial discrimination and i didn't like it. as my father and my father, my grandparents, my great-grandparents, why segregation? why racial discrimination and? and they would say, that's the way it is. don't get in trouble. don't get in the way. but in 1955, when i was in the tenth grade, 15 years old, i heard rosa parks. i heard the voice of martin luther king, jr. on the radio, and the words words of dr. king

ininspired me to fine a way to get in the way in 1956 was my brother's and sisters and some of my first cousins went down the public library in a little town of troy, alabama, trying to get library cards, trying to check some books out. and we were told by the librarian that the libraries were for whites only and not for coloreds. but on july 5, 1998, i went back to the public library in troy, alabama, for a book-signing of my book, walking with the wind, and hundred office blacks and white citizens showed up, and they gave me a library card. [applause] >> walking with the wind is a book of faith, hope, and courage. it's not just my story. it is the story of hundreds and thousands and countless men and women, blacks and whites, who put their body on the line during a very difficult period in the history of our country,

to end segregation and to end racial discrimination. >> here's a look at the upcoming book fairs and festival happening around the country. ...