we conclude tonight's program, and we have a nice reception across the hall to monitor kingsley haynes, and i thank you, all, for coming here tonight. lank you, brian lamb, and robb andynda johnson charles robb for coming here tonight. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> you are watching "american all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. to get more information, like us on facebook at c-span history.

>> duke university supreme court s discuss the supreme court and reconstruction era rise. this event is part of a series on the supreme court and reconstruction hosted by the supreme court historical society. [applause] >> sometimes i think that the problem with introductions of me is that before i got this job, i couldn't keep a job. [laughter] thank you very much for having me here. i just want to express my great appreciation for the supreme court historical society and for all of the rest of the associates here who do so much for the court. this year is the 2015 leon

silverman a lecturer a -- silverman lecture series. lecture series like these are an important part of what goes on at the court. parthey are only a small of what the supreme court historical society does. the supreme court historical society puts out a regular journal, it collects items relating to the court's history, which really are all around the , a lot of the offices and the portraits are a result of the society's collecting efforts. there are a lot of programs for school teachers to make sure that school teachers know how to and aboutt the court the american constitution and altogether, it is just a great support for the court and for the justices. liaison between

the court and the outside world so i am very grateful to you and to all of the rest of the people who make the society work. by making this society work, you really make the court work, and that is terrific. this book, as you have heard, by laura edwards, is called "the construction of rights." professor edwards is the peabody at dukerofessor university where she specializes in legal history, women's of the, the history south, especially in the 19th century. professor edwards earned a phd in history at the university of north carolina. she is the author most recently of "a legal history of the civil war and reconstruction: a nation of rights" that was published

just this year. her 2009 book, "the people and aeir piece: reformation in postrevolutionary south" was awarded the littleton griswold prize. "rlier works includes, gendered strife and confusion: the political culture of reconstruction." i also is a sailing the title of the book, "scarlet doesn't live here anymore." that is the best. [laughter] she has also been awarded the position of president of the southern association of women's historians and as a member of the board of directors for the american society of legal history and is a member of the southern ward of the

historical association, so i could continue with a long list otherfessor edwards's accomplishments, but i think what would be more interesting is to hear her talk about the 14th amendment. take you so much, professor edwards, for being here. [applause] prof. edwards: well, thank you so much. it is wonderful being here. thank you so much you jennifer lowe for making the powerpoint work and for getting me here. in 1870, maria mitchell, an african american world\ -- woman did something that she could not have done when she was enslaved, and that was to talk about her rights. according to the testimony of the trial that followed, she the 19th her anger at

century south, a highly stylized drama to shame the intended targets. later,, "mama it loud."kin' for her rights and she would speak as lead as she pleased. did not make her husk, it he would make her hush , and if it did no work, he would make her hush up. have discovered, the best evidence often turns up in this way, the past, which has really demonstrated absolutely no concern for me or my work, usually refuses to offer up the evidence i want, so instead, i

am not going to present you with all things that confound and confuse, and i am feared i am passed by many people because i have no idea what to do with them. occasionally a piece of evidence makes you take note and you are lucky. that is what happened in maria mitchell's case. now this is where we hope this works. down. it upside yet a -- yay! first as this case at i thought it provided a particularly compelling example of something i already knew, the constitutional changes to the reconstruction era that opened up the legal system to african-americans. clear,seemed so very maria mitchell had rights in 1870 that she did not have before and she was claiming them. she had rights because the

passage of the reconstruction amendments, particularly the 14th amendment, provided her civil rights and it prohibited states from discriminating on the basis of race. mitchell was talking to her rights as much as she pleased and as loud as she pleased and it underscored this issue. i thought i had it all figured out but i didn't. this of secured a far more interesting story, a story of constitutional change that most of us would be hard-pressed to find on a map. in the context of legal matters, most of us would consider it unremarkable, and not constitutional. the key to this other story was right in front of me. literally in the documentation of cases around maria mitchell. these are not published sources. these are appellate cases and legal treaties. -- not appellate

cases and legal treaties, these are loose, handwritten documents. documents,teresting like this one, were produced by magistrates, many of whom had no legal training. they set up court where they were, taking time out of their day to take complaints, issue warrants, and settle issues through the legal system. the people involved in these cases took an active part in this process, collecting evidence, providing information, and you actually see that context in these documents. officialsiting is by and i often struggled keeping up with oral testimony. the names are those of the people, the men and women, rich and poor, white and black, who are hashing out life's problems

in these cases, and you can even hear these people talking if you say these words out loud. perhaps they spoke in french, perhaps german or irish, perhaps it also talked about things for people of african descent. loud."ma was talkin these magistrates were charged with keeping the public order and the public peace. these issues included all but the most serious of crimes. the expectation was that officials would judah care -- would adjudicate conflicts, but obviously, not everyone agreed on what was right and not everyone's opinion carried equal weight. this framework was not just southern, and this is not just

hickother -- some southern thing going on here. the application of law throughout the courts in the united states and it was the legal framework that was most familiar to americans in the early 19th century. were concludeds with documents that were divided into thirds, tied with a ribbon, filed away, and forgotten. this is actually one that has been folded into thirds and unfolded and steamed open. now it is hard to imagine the legal framework maintaining public order in local communities doing what they thought was right had anything to do with the 14th amendment of the rights to protect it, but it did. i will explain that to you tonight. fair warning here, i am going to take you on a journey to places

that are strange in the context law, placesional like edgecomb county, north carolina. i promise that i will get you back to familiar terrain to washington, d.c., the federal government, and the u.s. constitution, but hopefully the journey will render these familiar places a little less familiar. to tell the story, i will talk about the two different legal frameworks that were operatives, one of focused on individual rights at the state and federal levels, and the other on maintaining public order and in dealing in what was right on the local level. so we have the right and what was right. happensill explore what after the passage of the 14th amendment, which brought these two legal frameworks together and encouraged americans to exceed federal authority as the protector of both right and what was right. the result was the rights

revolution. initiated by ordinary americans who transformed not just the meaning of rights, but also the reach of federal stretching a much wider array of federal issues before the passage of the 14th amendment. that was not necessarily the intention, but that was the result, and the implications have been both profound and enduring, supporting expensive expectations of what the right authorities can accomplish. in maria mitchell's case, it seemed obvious that she was claiming rights that other american citizens had but that had been denied to her by state law until the federal government interceded. casehen i returned to the after writing on legal culture in the 19th century, her claim struck me as odd. it was research for that book that made me come to terms about

what local records of said about the structure of the law in the heart of the legal system. as i learned, people rarely, if ever, invoked their rights in cases inxt of criminal the courts, and that was because local courts did not use that framework to adjudicate those cases, or, for that matter, any public matters involving public order, which included criminal matters as well as a wide variety of issues related to public health and welfare. most americans, including those outside of the south, would be familiar with this application of law within the legal system because they played a central role in their proceedings, something we will talk about more later. by most americans, i really do mean most americans. in that context, maria mitchell had to have known that rights had little power in the local venue. so my initial assumption that

she was talking for her rights and that that was about rights that she would claim in her criminal case missed the mark. so what did maria chill need? -- maria mitchell need? to answer that, we have to look at the legal system of the early 19th century. it you need to know about two things about the law in the early 19th-century that are very different from today. the first situation is that the legal authority of the federal government and the state government was limited, which is --say that that they were say that they were not the central area of the subject. many people generally encounter this in one of only two cu ways, military pensions, the campaign for federal office, and more [indiscernible] most people had no jurisdiction over the work of daily governments. ofy protected the rights

individuals and they were responsible for maintaining public order. but the magistrates in municipalities made local venues , not the states, the first venue assisted with public order of what was to be right or doing right. the situation predates revolution when colonizers decentralize the most important issues of government all in the name of bringing the law to the people. most of this was done in the legal venues i heard from -- i discussed earlier, but there is also magistrate hearings and trials. these locations really made law part of the fabric of people's lives. they can feed where ever there space, a house, a barn, a mill -- they convened wherever there was sufficient

space, a house, a barn, a mill, -- pasture. we chuckle today when we see the mill. but we need to take the mill seriously as a legal forum. now the second thing that you need to know is that rights in the early 19th century are not what they are today, so when i use the terms individual rights or rights for short, i am referring primarily to those rights that at the time that were thought to be conferred by andgovernment, namely civil political rights, and that was given to people who were namely considered political individuals, mostly white man who owned property.

in practice, what constituted a natural right was contested and was ultimately dependent on government recognition and enforcement. natural rights like life and liberty were connected to civil and political rights in the sense of those who could claim political rights, free, white men, could claim rights that those who did not. such as married women and the enslaved. property ownership was inseparable from individual rights in the early 19th century. suffrage for white man had recently been eliminated for them by the time of the civil war. election for some offices and some states were still restricted on the basis of property. rights also involved property ownership, accumulation, and exchange, or access to those jurisdictions with authority over the body of law. legalthority over the

framework of individual rights lay with state and federal jurisdictions. the states handle far more cases at a watch -- at a much wider variety. courts handled rights magistrate courts. authority over rights did not mean that the states and the federal government exercised authority over peoples' lives. the rhetoric at the time which equated rights with freedom and happiness would suggest all know, but as we political reverence is not always describing realities. with some exceptions, rights particularly achieve very little in the legal system, even those -- even for those americans who could claim them. are claimed by

individuals by identifying winners and losers. federal courts moreover, were committed to the not toation's of rights, the concerns of individuals who brought her concerns to the courts for adjudication -- brought their concerns to the courts for adjudication. a conviction could be overturned because of an improperly framed in diamond or a seizure of property because a faulty bill of sale. tendedlication of rights to involve inequalities because the problems involved ownership of property. that situation also explained the 19th century settler -- century stereotype of lawyers, and i hate to describe this, as parasites.

what about those rights such as freedom of religion, press, and assembly, and the u.s. constitution bill of rights? the rights in the u.s. constitution only applied in federal cases, which meant that they were not available to each state and local levels where people were involved. people could reach for rights enumerated in their state's constitution, but the fact that states also had broad power made those rights contingent, not absolute. both state and local government exercised wide latitude in eliminating or suspending rights in the name of the public good. local governments exercised even more discretion than state governments in this area because the states delegated so much to the local level. now if you assume that law was designed primarily at the

federal level and the states level and primarily concerned within the framework of adividual rights, you have very skewed view of law in the 19th century. for example, the majority of aericans could not claim those rights, like women and and you would also find the part of the system that would deal with what was to be right, was nearly unintelligible. shows that a here [indiscernible] which takes us back to the local level. most scholars handle the rights to explain a law and most --ricans experienced with experience with the law was at

the local level and used that aim to maintain the peace of the public order. they aimed to do what was right. the piece was a well-established ce was a that -- pea well-established concept that would support everyone in various ways within a hierarchical system. it was inclusive but only in the sense that if forced everyone into a patriarchal embrace and then raised its collective interest over those of any given individual. you were part of it whether you wanted to be there or not, which meant that the peace was anything but peaceful. keeping the peace meant keeping everyone from the lowest to the highest as being in their place. this was a job that was actually about coercion, which was not peaceful. while this localized system did

not recognize the rights of free women, children, in slaved people, or freed blacks, it still went into the inner workings, because they were part of the social order that the process was overseeing. this is the maintain the regulation, but it also relied on information that they supplied about disorder. take for example two cases in north carolina initiated by slaves. one slave told a magistrate that assaulted a man during a card game and another said that the freed black man assaulted another slave after the card game. we have a very common morals charge. but that was not mentioned in this particular incident. these slaves gave information, and i am putting that in quotes because it is a

technical term, and then the magistrate proceeded with the case, so it was the magistrate who actually acted as the prosecutor. often, these slaves had reasons did,he things that they but it perhaps involved proceedings that people got from the card games or other issues that are now lost to history. the magistrate's concerns were focused on the problem between a slaves and freed blacks playing card games and fighting on a sunday. as such, this highlights the central elements of the system. different people pursued different ends with in it, sometimes at the same time. that was possible because the system depended upon per dissipation within everyone in the community. representedtes

everyone, collected evidence, and even represented themselves. it was not unusual for witness after witness after witness after witness to come forward and to tell what they did, a situation that magistrates usually waited for patiently. legal conflict was about healing a rift in the community. that is why court officials prosecuted cases on behalf of the individual without legal status to do so themselves, which is the two slaves that i just mentioned who filed a complaint and filed information, but also married women and minors. these cases did not involve cases like wifebeating, child abuse, and these routinely went forward as offenses against the peace. these are things that were wrong and not right.

local courts that met it out out justiceetted would not establish standards, but to maintain peace. on a flexibleed collection of principles. this included local customs, how we do things here, in other words, accepted wisdom, the bible, fables, fiction, the wisdom of somebody's grandmother, that kind of wisdom, as well as an array of legal statutes and state appellate law. the law in this part of the system was capricious and uncontrolled by professionals, and thus, calls for reform in many trained lawyers -- by many theyed lawyers because

wanted those laws recognized by state law. whatu sit there and wonder they were thinking, it is because they were preening up all kinds of other material into legal cases that makes this necessary. framework used in local jurisdictions allow for the handling of situations that would not have had legal standing in state or federal courts. filed charges against slaves they could not control, wives filed charges against husbands, children informed on their parents, slaves try to mobilize -- tried to mobilize courts and would often use resolutionssolve against siblings and uncles and cousins all aligning up to air their dirty laundry. my most favorite case involved three wives and abuse. againstber one charged

white number three for abuse, i got this confuse, wife number three said she did not still a wife but she stole it from number two, so you have three woman -- three women, one goose, they are all fighting over the goose. none of these women could prosecute a case, because they assumed a wife's legal identity was with her husband and it limited her ability to prosecute cases within her own property. the prosecutor would define property ownership based on state and federal law, but it would not apply to this case. the goose that went back to its -- goose went back to its original owner, wife number one, because it was not

hers, but it was a display's order. they were writing a wrong -- righting a wrong. notperson's experience did transfer to another person of similar status. each jurisdiction produced inconsistent rulings aimed at resolving particular many people saw this situation is natural and john. he today would see this unjust. but it makes sense of the time. why through developed elsewhere in a attention to particular dynamics of the. plain mean. he needs the .

you needed to know that formation to know how to maintain order in the particularly. googled not know that legal venues of the involved in the late crucial role in i option.g order and .o mitchell answer is she was asking for

rights to accept legal system. the ones that were unspecified of the asserted not what was right. it was the disruption of the public order. it was not early violation right. they pursued this because they wanted public condemnation behavior. in the first half of the 19th century these claims about what's right the claims of slaves about gaining on sunday. level withe local reconstruction they changed all that. did not just the firm the rights of african-american they also

made it possible replacement will right. travel elsewhere system. altering the meaning of right changing the place government. right right. the claims about what was right first traveled to the federal jurisdiction that was made by african-american during the civil war. to use the legal system characteristics of the action and conflict. the taken such actions for granted. it is really remarked that sleep address. but they did. formerly enslaved african-americans also said on other deeply rooted expectations about the law.

the promise of the moment of the civil war -- the possibility of emancipation, the possibility of abandoned agree gave them hope they can access authority. those expectations of claim why african-americans begin bringing their way during the civil war. their claims to rights were still currently tenuous. african-americans saw down military patrols and courts to adjudicate their conflict. they continue to do so after confederate surrender. during. when states would limit the rights of all african-american. but african-american nonetheless their cases. they came to venues with right

claims but they also asked the officials run the kinds of issues that with the fallen syllable words and that have been handled within the framework of the right. violent anding including domestic issues. matters involving questions of social justice such as the treatment of refugees in the name of wages. in these cases expected federal just simpleght not -- just of all the right. they struggle to keep up. consternation some of these will. see them there with her for a browse. they were trying to figure out how to handle the cases. needless to say most these issues were not on the on within the federal.

the exercise of federal 48th in the time might've been very not the is cinnamon. particularly the 14th amendment you did not have work. prohibiting them making or enforce any law. for depriving any person of life it couldroperty area strictly in the

federal light -- right in riot directly. given the limited resources that authority was never fully realized. night our nonetheless. particularly in his armor bearer. the 14th amendment for state to extend the right to african-american and possible to turn the armstrongs assault to a legal matter. if she instilled in lane or initial could not prosecute a. she only could have given information. like the two slaves i mentioned earlier local official my is a defense against these. a likely see it legally sanctioned discipline the master could use again because late. bethe constitution might

seen even a relevancy of minor dispute. but it was not. mitchell and other african-american file charges of their civil right enabled by the 14th amendment and enshrined the cost of protected by the rent of federal. what happened in those words that alter or pretty. this is the 14th amendment of the ordinary american section of right to migrate local venues in the right. amendment for voting rights of the 14 for civil rights. before the constitutional changes lanes remains in the area local jurisdiction in a particular matter of all particular people. a individual to

another. one of wrong right was restored and there were new to the law. order is. cases would never have aided in the federal through the action area because of that appeal to the state level the only under procedural law is the wording of the type. an appeal could not be they on the substantive merit is playing about his action. armstrongre whether actions represented defense against her. jurisdiction made all the different. monumental case did not migrate points to theord logic of the process to allow claims to travel in. armstrongs actions were not right and they all have violated. lates about fragrance that

in the context of state and federal jurisdiction prior meeting they did not have been looking through the action. there were no longer about particular conflict particular weird conflict involving particular weird individual. if the involved right universally applicable to others. enforced by the authority of the state government will area. if you find the status of. one of the most dramatic examples is that the public use and services. because railroads restaurants is held and even government job. claims to involve the maintenance of the order. extend the question of

accessible right there with negative categories social. privileges established contact very from one to another and not protected by federal law and resistant services branch the wire to service a. expectations never guarantee access to the contrary. job poverty' only partisan at always been restrict in particularly african-american but also for free women. the result was a local ordinances and laws in the is strain were people go. warng and after the civil they make claims to the space in terms of right is since then and the federal government should. they have the right of public

space relations? if not public? was not the government duty to mitchellch as mark claimed the right to use a way employer really rejected. to be sure such views also support congressional leaders. ordinary people who really conception is a right to the legal arena. the civil rights act of 1875 is the knowledge this provision. they were declared that the cases involving a continued to cut the issue in terms of all right. characterization me as usual. there are always difficult

separate from their conceptions of what was right. because of the structural racism of structurally similar, violent. there was a lot of it. underscore that enough. it was difficult to identify the silence widelyr and indiscriminately to keep america in understanding the visions of was right. anything economically.

many mores of violence never read that all. distinguish the conflicts that remain local level migrated jurisdiction leslie civil and political rights. rightolence resulting in violation if that happens then it could move up and out of the. the emphasis on the resume involving rights violation skewers underlying commonalities and all. challenged-american they were substituting their own vision of what was right often by using using the right. in of the most famous case the spring work provides a

particularly in. later there was no clear. the tom cole fact to a file. along with the democratic party attacking democratic parties. estimated the light killed between 600 and. could tors didn't they convict the members of the way. the defendants probably turn around neil claiming the government overstepped his authority. will still questions about right violation from broader question about what was right.

there were questions about the public order to. what was wrong with the pervasiveness of what i making that right sing a lot more than right. sick so that make her difficult that controversial then. jesus through the framework of right and one that clearly frustrated justice. the decision for the decisions of one of the. in that sense the recognition of right and in a direction that too many people wrong.

my focus cases involving african-american student the confederacy. the changes to the number of americans. the position federal government and all-american state. it brings to life in a butcher. in the slaughterhouse case is best slaughterhouse cases. i like that. white women and butchers and off against. but the number of the u.s. anything 70 read very year the cold.

wells played in his eventual role in illinois legals. illinois state legislature building with lawyers who rent obligation. be talent had creative use of amendment. other women's rights advocates evendvocating time you though it was connected to a right to pursue her livelihood. issues that were central importance to women married women want is right.

when the legislature refused ephesians you they nine right. still use the 14th amendment streets broader transformation underway as a way to federal authorities actually deal one you disagree with state level. villagers were challenging in order that regulated slaughtering among other things from highlight undesignated television slaughterhouse. that would be favorable many. the new orleans not taken the

unusual state government a choose a on how to i know that they with their government. they support the democratic party was on the regulation is part of the republican party that controlled the city. they also wanted to the republican party by using the tools the republican party was using, the 14th amendment. which is reached with the laws of medical evidence. they use the 14th amendment to protect they saw as the right to a livelihood and. is rapid inclusion by a legal roots that the one like theoing area butchers bradwell framed access

to economic opportunity is a right by the men. the court rejected the butchers lanes just as it did bradwell upholding the states right to regulate the public good. through talking about waterhouse and slaughterhouse case work was also is as if trying to limit the rights of the 14th amendment. it was designed to protect the rights of america that is their claim to the right already recognized a state law. it was not -- intended for the expansive uses to with interest but it. " he said the judges saw seen the nation right. let on. mis-direction and read an affirmation of right. you can read it is a harbinger of argument that connected the

14th amendment lanes and ultimately a broader array of scholars meet both argument. scholars installed unable to resolve on. what does this mean direction to these cases go? the conflict was is. these cases are examples of the african-american in their view of what was right a right. conflict. people in the african-american in the left, cases of murder bradwell new orleans. feelings of the authority to directly rhetoric. all of these americans expect a lot and they were not.

diverse of late enemies elevator operators acres. all with the transit use of federal power is that it changes every right. occasion eagleman is also right wrong right leg the world right. anything the connection between right and what was right stronger positive conceptions of means --ht to me this as a means to an end. fromrustration of justice shame and other cases. right even in the most one

definite women to. preservation of an individual's right to anonymous public and. still policy changes the reconstruction era allowed the diverse group of america in to the realm of a long break the government. and once they are in that is of universal legal way. claim. widely held by a broad range of country from the loss of life. these expectations about the federal government maintaining just.

about what constituted just society. though conflict were and harness. law to realize is. thank you. >> warriors presented in your hand inside that eastern time. to watch more at any time as there was. you're watching american history tv always in every weekend.

[indiscernible] this thet or not persimmon event. i've been working overseas and occupied. 44 i was the first allied officer. gestapo.tured by the new isough i was a considered a non-is taken to risen were a. i was taken to the housing concentration/extermination in germany. been starving in the film mostly.

two american officers were there. one a u.s. naval law serve. --o the army officer in officer. [indiscernible]

i came here in uniform. i have been them to the -- condemned to death. that's i -- >> i am the officer commanding. they are about 50. above the thousand people we expect to very about half of again. >> c-span has recovered of the real candidatem

is the area this year we're taking the road to white house to classrooms across the three with our students and test innings the opportunity to does what important issues and you. contest on tv on the radio and online c-span.org. >> american history tv we hear from the deputy director of the eisenhower presidential library. he discusses his believe that social welfare programs create desperate to avoid raided by the closing of the american two-year limited employees -- opportunities for the unemployed and.

>> good evening. i'm the director of the library and is leisure loving you here on the 125th anniversary of the earth dwight d. eisenhower. eisenhower.way d the presidential libraries associate director you will hear from the moment. this is sponsored we're happy to say that the wt cap or foundation and commerzbank. of yours is married a frenchman. as a german family this is difficult birthday. she is here tonight we welcome you back.