19th amendment. watch beginning at eight eastern and enjoy american history tv every weekend on c-span 3. during the constitutional convention in philadelphia, the issue of slavery was frequently debated throughout the summer of 1787. , next in a discussion hosted by the colonial williamsburg foundation, a law professor and two actors who portray free and enslaved blacks in williamsburg discussed the rules compromising slavery played in drafting the constitution and the enduring legacy of those compromises. this program also includes two dramatic interpretations of 17 eighties african americans. good evening, and welcome to -- interest, slavery of the united states constitution. i'm deirdre jones and i want to welcome you to our final event for our constitution weekend.

you may know me as a programming lead for the at their interpreters and maybe recognize me for my time in colonial williamsburg, portraying previously inslee black people. this evening i have the pleasure of serving as your moderator. i am also joined by ali, you hope right, my dear colleague began her career in williamsburg when she was in the third grade. she was a performer in a plea on my own time, and the black music program. she has collaborated with many other departments in the foundation, as well as with other museums over the course of her career. she's worked with a variety of educational visitations as actress, storyteller, writer, researcher, and mentor. please welcome hope right. >> thank. you --

she has received many awards, including the statewide atlantic faculty award for rising star category. professor larsen is a scholar of constitutional law and legal institutions with a focus on how information dynamics affect the vote. her work has been featured multiple times in various publications. and these are just a few of her accomplishments. please help me in welcoming allie larsen. our discussion will be about an hour long this evening. and it may feel uncomfortable at times. that's okay. you may feel angry. that's okay. you may feel sad. that's also okay. all of these feelings arose for me when i was researching for the event. and it's okay to feel something.

this reminds us that we care. now while slavery is not the beginning of the story, the purposes of trying to dive into two very large topics in very little bit of time we will start our meeting with lidia a woman who is from the time period, we find in her home speaking to elizabeth rosario. ali, did you know that hope has portrayed elizabeth? >> elizabeth rosary is a freed black woman who lived in williamsburg, a mother of two daughters, caroline, and also a property owner. so someone who did quite well for herself. >> think you so much hope. lidia, she was legally enslaved -- one of the delegates who attended the constitutional convention. this is behind, us and this interpretation, it's 1787, we find lidia in her home sharing

some important news with elizabeth. be known until all met by this presence, that williamsburg, do emancipate and set free my -- women, lidia. under my hand and seal the 20th day of august, my lord. [laughs]

good day. i am lidia. and i'm a free woman. oh elizabeth. i don't know mauve where my emotions will go this week. my mood is swinging between eight ocean and despair, i have yearned for freedom ever since i learned i was a sleeve. as you will know elizabeth, the path to freedom for one born a slave is very difficult, almost impossible. a guinness, lucy, tell me if they're planted joined the

british during the war. i thought of it too, but then i thought better of. it what was i going to do in a british war camp? to think they have entered. what has become of all of the people who sought their freedom. a lining themselves with the so-called enemies of their so-called masters. i thought this is not my path. benjamin agreed. so we waited. we waited for his words and needs to align. -- is enough to make anyone hopeful. and i was hopeful, declaration of independence said all men are created equal. but nothing changed for us. as that were started, raging my

thoughts turn to our survival. lingering in the back of my mind as -- , freedom, in the back of my mind. when i learned of the law that was passed, in 1872 about the many mission of sleeves. allowing the many mission of sleeves. surely i thought now is the time. wilfred, you must free us. so we waited. another five years elizabeth. and for wet? for the death of my mistress? i will never know what mr. and mrs. smith discussed in private. was it her dying wish to see us free? or was it hurt living wish that kept us in sleeved.

i'm glad to be free of her? interesting choice of words, elizabeth. it's complicated. i do more. it's hard to believe that she's gone. she and i developed a way of being with one another throughout the years. i ingratiate myself to her. alas, this is a matter of survival. i helped her manage her household with the utmost skill and cleverness. and in return, she allowed me -- and for that i'm grateful. however, a mistress is a mistress. you remember when i begged her

to let me travel with her. yes, 11 years ago when they travel to philadelphia and 76. yes you, to when they travel to philadelphia on the declaration of independence. i wanted to go. i want to go so badly. of course benjamin was driving. them he would be done for as long as they were. i so wanted to immerse myself in the free black population in philadelphia. the freed blacks outnumbered the sleeves there. paris, paris was so young. benny would have preferred to stay here and care for her child. the mistress reminded me of my place. your housekeeper lidia. your job is to tend to the house. what's neat is they are free to

trouble? she will travel. you will stay here. that is that. this beautiful home has been my prison. when benjamin returned from philadelphia, the stories he had about his encounter. how we dreamed of freedom then. we were scared about what we would do with it. plotted. and now we are free. doug and probably will be free, and charles is free. kate, rachel, lidia, dog lucy doug, jamie, danny, paris, isaac, will not be free.

doug mr. wilson is giving them as a gift. they are being developed amongst my dead nephews and nieces. i want to scream or cry, how can i celebrate when so many i love our still sleeves? lidia was grappling with her newfound freedom. but she's been enslaved for most of her life. now as it relates to lidia and this time period, what is the definition of slavery? how would you define it? >> an enslaved person is someone who is bound by enslaved laws. i think it's important to point out that slavery as entrenched in the law is here in virginia. it's far and wide reaching. it changes peoples

classifications. it puts limits on what people can and can't do. it's not just one law or a handful of laws. it's hundreds of laws that are amended and strengthened overtime. >> can you speak a little bit about the laws that codified slavery here in virginia, or anywhere? >> before we talked about the laws. there are a couple of cases that set a precedent. what is in 16 40, and it involves three men incertitude, one was african mother by the name of john, punch the other european descent, and scotch men. so they were all in servitude. they ran from virginia to maryland, they were cut and return to virginia. so they all committed the same crime though. they were runways. they got caught together. they did the same thing. you begin to see racial differences in treatment with

the case. where victor and gregory were -- one additional year and the colony of virginia three years. john was me to serve his owner and his owners besides or ears for the rest of his natural life wherever they lived. >> and john punch was black? >> john punch was black. he's referenced as african in this record. you've another case that turns out a little different in 16 56, when you have a woman by the name of elizabeth, and elizabeth keys had a mom who was of african descent, and a father named thomas key who was in english dissent, and rather prominent. in english law traditionally everything goes through the father. and she had been baptized as a christian. so there were restrictions on how christians could be held in bondage, the type of sponge they could be held in.

thomas key made arrangements for his daughter that after he died, if she was under the age of 18 he still valued because. in 1918 however a great bit of time had passed since her 18th birthday. she was in through her twenties and she sued for her freedom on the fact that it had been breach of contract, but also to very important point is that she had been baptized as a christian, and her father was a free englishman. we see a different outcome in this case where elizabeth keys was found to be a free woman. and she was also paid in barrels of coren i believe for the additional time served in which she should have been free. so these are two legal cases that show the president. the first law passed. you can tell that it's a little reactionary. the first label in virginia when it's passed in 60 62, it

says whereas there have been questions as to status of children board of a african women and a black father. this law 60 62 states that the status of a child is on a mom -- >> is this different from uc and english camilla? >> yes. in english, it goes to the father, so on and so forth. this is something very different. and this is something that will be very important as we do get a little bit closer to the constitution you have set into motion a system of servitude that is perpetual and it's hereditary. so by the time that you get to the 17 eighties, most people who are large slave owners, they've gained those enslaved people through natural in currents, inheritance, diaries,

not to say the people aren't still purchasing slaves. that still very much something that's going on but when you think of people who owe hundreds of enslaved people. we look at people who own 200 it's very likely that they didn't produce 200. but when you look at the property and assess a value to the property, oftentimes, when you look at inventory of period most of the value of the things the people on before they pass away will be invested in slaves. so just the law alone provided a system which wealth is built just through natural means. that's just one. that's just one. >> so defined other laws? are there other laws that are codified and this time period that sort of solidify or start to solidify the institution of slavery? >> yes, with elizabeth keys

case one of her points was also that she had been baptized as a question. so insistent 67, you see a law passed the says that baptism doesn't alter a person's status, bond or. free so in addition to elizabeth were other people. that's something that should be pointed out. black people were still very active. trying to use the legal system at this time. actually it's fascinating. >> now this law in 16 67 is closing another window. and you still continue to see enslaved people being baptized by the parish closest to us and williamsburg and in their parish records. but oftentimes this usually becomes a way to keep track of a asleep person. it leads to another law, the

classification of enslaved people on the very beginning has always been that property. that is a case where if -- you have certain rights by virtue of being recognized as human in the eyes of the law but enslaved people are never recognized as human beings. thank you for that. >> you're welcome. >> she had mentioned inventories. taking note of people and baptismal registries. i think when researching inslee people those are things that i use because hope has taught me to use them. can we also get into lidia, she finds her freedom in that interpretation that you also. what were some pathways to

freedom for inslee people? especially once those laws doug were coming in the 60 sixties. do you know any enslaved people that received their freedom? >> the big revision and looking at sleep was, also known as the black laws, oftentimes it's one individual who petitions the court or the council, but one the black votes are sort of solidified in 70 23, you see a law passed that states that for a inslee person to be granted ammunition they have to perform some type of service or deed. and even then, the only group of people that can for the status of freedom can grant the ammunition and be part of the government's counsel. so we know that the republican

50 or 60 or so of those petitions. they go before the governor's counsel. and they're approved at about two thirds or so. but that is still a very small number of people who gain their freedom that way. >> that's just looking at virginia? >> that's looking at. virginia virginia in the 18th century was a very agrarian society. -- tobacco, and nicole, ice, they lead us to believe that slavery was only in the south. now will you all be able to speak about the regional differences over slavery heading into the constitution? >> does -- >> by and large, there are two definitions of sleeve society. basically i think it's like we're half the population is

enslaved. that's mostly this out where it's sleep society. tobacco, indigo, and race that you mentioned. but the norm is very much a society with a slave rehab people working in homes a little. more caverns. skilled trades. not that that didn't happen in the south as well. but by and, large the whole economy is based on the agriculture there. so there's never been an absence of -- forever, and any of the original 13 colonies and -- going on in virginia, massachusetts is the first colony to legalize sliver of the regional 13. >> thank. you >> did you want to add anything? >> i just want to say that in the early colonies the rate of slavery was equivalent in the north and south. by the time we get to 1987 are pretty stark regional differences. there's a lot more is sleeved

people in the south than the north for the reasons hopes adjusts with the different of the economies, the agriculture, the longer growing season, and the sort of thought that you need to have more sleeve labor enabler to take advantage of the -- season. so that sets a fierce battle lines when we get to the convention in 1887. >> let's go there. let's jump right into 1777 and that time period. how many delegates in the constitution convention on slaves? >> -- we are the stories. it's a hot summer in philadelphia. they kept up the windows. of those 55 people, 25 of them owned slave s so almost half. i think it's important to recognize that even of the delegates in the united states there wasn't a lot of talk about racial equality. it's not a racial paradise even

in the states where slavery was being gradually faced. it -- enslaved people were property and there was a lot of talk about property rights. probably right of the people who owned the sleeves. that's shared amongst a lot of the people in the delegation. -- could divest a person of the property rights. >> and is that something with you all want to share? you mentioned that slavery was starting to be feast out. a post revolution, we are several years removed from it. are there states that are trying to deal with slavery. >> pennsylvania's the. first the craters of the first. and there's a gradual and emancipation scheme where you may not confer someone's freedom right away but when you reach a certain age that they are given their freedom, so this is starting to happen in

some colonies by the time that we get to the constitutional convention. but it is not the norm. >> i think that virginia makes a law that makes it easier for masters to emancipate there and slave you pull more towards the american revolution. now that we're in 1887, we're thinking back on but where they tried to do? what's the constitution? why create a constitution? >> yes, what's that about? so the constitution is the permanent law in the united states. which means it trumps all conflicting laws, and it's also very hard to amend. so i think of the constitution in part as a mission statement. it embodies values that we share as americans and we strive for. another really important part of the constitution that was to set up the national government. so it's a long story but the short version is that the government that we are existing

under, the articles of confederation, was. feeling congress didn't have enough power. they couldn't regulate commerce. they couldn't tax. instead they had to ask states for money. it was operating more like a league of nations of 30 different countries, as opposed to one united states of america. >> is that sort of how the articles of the confederation were used? >> so the articles of confederation required unanimous being in order to change anything. you are never going to get. that road island was always the stinker. they always held out. [laughs] it's a very different change from we the 13 sovereign states, all of whom have our own rules, to be the people, that was a huge change to have popular sovereignty. a big function of the constitutional convention was creating and instilling the national government that we now know.

>> we the people,, so, knowing that, we alluded to how slavery denied the humanity of people. we are in the constitution is slavery mentioned? is it mentioned? so they say anything about slaves? >> yeah it is interesting a mission. the word slavery is never used in the constitution. the use euphemisms like the person's. i think that mission is telling. i think it shows that even if they weren't willing to abolish slavery in 1787, there were plenty of them that were an easy with. it madison wrote to jefferson and said it would be the achilles heel of the country. so i think that a mission is telling. even though they don't mention slavery by name though, there are three explicit provisions in the constitution to protect sleep owners. that protect slavery. the first one is probably the

one that everyone is most familiar with, and that is the three fifth clause. you all remember that the way our congress is set up, there are two chambers. there's the senate and house of representatives. reaching that was a great compromise to make sure the small states and big states, everyone was. happy in the senate all the states got to senators. everybody. >> not everybody. every state. good clarification. but the house of representatives is apportioned by population. so the big fight is about power. the seven states like two can't sleeve towards their numbers so that they have more representatives in congress. the northern states didn't want that. so it is a fight over who has more representatives in congress. but i want to be clear. it's not a fight about morality. it's a fight about power. so even the northern delegates. they are arguing that slaves

our property. it's really quite. ugly and the southerners are saying we want to keep them as a whole. people they are doing that because they want more representatives in congress. >> it seems like we see that throughout the 18th century of enslaved people being used to the advantage for sleep owners to gain power. is that three fifths compromise. you touched on this. the three fifths compromise seems like it is directly related to the great compromise because it was all about the numbers of people, and trying to get more power. neil nielsen was wondering, were northern or southern states more responsible for the horrific three fifths rule? does that show up anywhere else leading up to this point in

1877? >> they would have been familiar with the fraction because madison had used it in proposed amendment articles when dealing with taxes. he had used three fifths of a person in order to count for purposes of taxation under the articles. that is where it comes from. but in terms of who is to blame. i think there's enough blame to go around. it was seen as sort of a very important steppingstone to actually reaching the constitution, to reaching a document that would tie all 13 colonies together. and without it, the consensus was that we wouldn't have a constitution. because those five southern states, they were ready to walk. >> you think they really would have done it? we will never know now. you had mentioned that there were three sections that directly related to slavery. what is the second one?

>> the second one has to do with the importation of enslaved people. so this is the foreign slave trade. this was really controversial at the convention. because under the articles of confederation, earlier, government congress have power to regulate the slave trade. the southern states wanted to stay that way. northern delegates were much more willing to fight the slave trade than they were the fight domestic slavery. i think part of that is because of the property rights that were talking about before. there's no vestige property rights when you're talking about deportation. i think part of it is also just politics. that person, of the virginia, was actually making a fair bit of money selling slaves to the deep south. it is to their economic advantage to stop the competition from the southern slave --

that's pretty grim. >> i know i had heard before that virginia had started to make money. i would imagine it's the same for the other colonies, and that probably didn't change when they became. states especially after the war. >> what's happened? >> yeah. >> this is actually quid pro quo. in exchange for extending the slave trade in 18 oh, it so in the constitution, congress isn't allowed to stop the slave trade in 1808 and even then it is an option. in exchange for, that congress gets the congress clause, which turns out to be really important source of power for the national government. the southern states want congress to have a commerce closs without a majority. they give in on that as long as they got to protect their slave trade, for 20 years. by the, way jefferson did eliminate the slave trade in 18 oh it as soon as the constitution allowed him to do it. and this is one of two

provisions in the constitution that was not commendable. the fight was so vicious, that once they met that compromise, it was not amended. >> that's fascinating too because links and with what hope was talking about, a natural increase almost perpetuating itself, which was probably happening at greater rates in virginia than in some of those more southern states that people had a lot less of a life expectancy growing things like rice and indigo. thank you. now you said there was one more. what was the third one? sorry. [laughs] >> the third one is the fugitive slave clause. this is the clause that gives southern sleeve owners a right to have their enslaved people returned to them if they escape to the north. here is the interesting thing about this.

by the time we get to the civil war, this is a huge controversy. it is a huge divide between the north and south. the northerners really hated having to return formerly enslaved people who had run away, back to their owners in the south. they hated that. at the time of the convention in 1787, this wasn't controversial at all. it was introduced at the end of the convention by a south carolina delegate. there was no quid pro quo. there was no compromise. there is no debate. there was no objection. just another example of how even if there were anti-slavery voices at the convention, and there were, alexander hamilton, those voices stopped short of thinking you could divest a property owner of their property. it is really jarring today to think of it that way. >> i imagine too in that time

period, from the 17th century, they have been practicing this mindset of denying the humanity of enslaved people, and so, if it comes down to their property or what they believe to be their property, or the humanity of people they are telling themselves are not human, it still doesn't make sense to me. it still doesn't make sense to me. but i am a 21st century kind of woman. i cut you off again. sorry. >> there is a obvious tension between the all men are created equal rhetoric of the declaration of independence and treating humans as property. that's a obvious tension. i don't want it to come across like they didn't recognize that. there are plenty of people that recognize that tension. abigail adams recognized that tension in a letter. but it was just a nonstarter, i

guess, to think in 1787 this practice would become so ingrained that they were going to come up with a constitution that abolished it. >> thank you, thank you so much. we have a question. from law -- they want to know what was the total number of representatives, and what percentage insisted on keeping? slavery can you speak a little bit about that. >> sure. so five of the 13 colonies are in the, south and they are not going to ratify and anti slavery constitution. and everyone knows that. there are 25 of those. over 20% of those men own slaves. and even the incident weren't pushing for racial equality. it is a very different world than the world that we know. so it is sometimes hard to put yourself back in that

perspective. there were five states that would not have signed a constitution. so we have a war. >> it seems that became inevitable. it's interesting, before you had mentioned about, oh it's gone now, about choosing to see them as property and not as people. and about how, that's how they saw them. so the ads that we have read and considered, you see the social recognition of their humanity in some cases, referencing people who have got to look for their wives, or got to look for their husbands, even though, legally enslaved people couldn't marry. it seems, again, whenever it is in favor of the delegates, that they choose whatever is best for them. which is human, right?

they were, people just like the enslaved people were. so you had mentioned a little bit about the compromise. but if you want to add a little bit more on how compromise, or how you see compromise affecting our constitution, and how it affected people at the. time do you have any examples? >> one thing to think about is, you can think of the constitution in two ways. so they were writing a political document. a document that was a political compromise. then that would be concessions. not everybody is going to be happy. in the ratification debates, actually the northerners think that it has put slavery on the road of extinction. that's the reason to sign it. and the southerners think no it's protecting sleep owners and that's a reason to sign. it in some, ways that is a example of effective

compromise. another way to look at the constitution is as a statement of values. if you look at it that way, they did not want to write the word slavery in it. they were uneasy about slavery, even if they were protecting it as a political document. there were several delegates to the convention that very much hoped slavery was on its way out. let's not throw them a parade. it's not cost us elaborate. but i do think you can look at it as they didn't want to take the document that they were hoping to enter for generations, with the horrors of slavery. >> hopeful. thank you. if you want to add? >> i think when you think of compromise, it was these 55 men in a room that we're making compromises with each other. but it was at the expense of so many, especially of enslaved individuals we are decisions were being made about them.

they weren't even at a table to have a position to have a sea. that's also something that you see once a law is written, you see how the definition of property was written into the, law and how it still had all of these effects. 100 plus years later that when compromises have to be made, it is at the expense oftentimes of free and enslaved black people. >> you don't have a voice. right. we often get these questions about what's about women? you know. this is not to be confused with women. because women come in all shapes, colors, and complexions. we are focusing primarily on women of african descent, even though women were not at the table, ted writes, unlike black women of the time period.

thank you. >> let's go back to the last question that you asked. law was slippery? legalized ownership of another human being buying and selling, abusing, having the legal right to do that. that puts it in a totally different category than anyone who isn't in that room. >> thank you. >> you mention runaway as a adulterous life even though it wasn't something legally recognized, being defined as property, just that classification alone puts you off from so many things. being legally married to someone. as a parent, especially as a mother, as a enslaved mother you know before you bring children into this world any children you do bring forth will automatically belong to the person that owns you. so just that classification alone, you know, it reverberates through history.

and what it means to you. the benefits and privileges and rights cannot be seen as human. >> thank you. >> we continue to deal with the effects of choices made in the past. now according to garry bash and his book the argument that slavery could not have been abolished, weeks of the dangerously odious concept of historical never debility. almost always in historical writings, the concept advanced by those eager to excuse mistakes and virtually never buy those writing on behalf of victims of those mistakes. the idea of historical inevitability is a winners weapon as old as the tales told by ancient conquerors. i think you touched on this a little bit earlier. but i'm going to go ahead and ask. was abolishing slavery ever something that they intended

with the constitution? >> the difficult answer is no. >> the honest answer. >> it's a difficult answer but it's. no there's a lot of truth in that statement. i do not need to excuse the man in that room that made the decisions that they did. according to the debate record that was a nonstarter. it wasn't something that alexander hamilton or ben franklin thought they were authorized to bring to the convention even if they were willing to fight for in their own states. this is something i should've mentioned. not just the property rights idea was entrenched, but the idea of state sovereignty was so entrenched. it wouldn't be a national solution to this problem. it would be individual states with the authority to decide, when slavery was abolished if slavery was abolished. so even the anti slavery voices were not going to push for a national government powered abolish slavery.

>> thank you. >> now we know as you mentioned that about 25 of those 55 delegates in the room, they did own enslaved people. slavery was still present in the united states. even today, with researching this topic, looking back over 200 years, trying to find information about not only the debates, but the people that those gentlemen owned, i have been hitting a lot of walls, but right now you're going to see eight interpretation of something that takes place in philadelphia in 1787.

>> do you remember me? perhaps you know my master. he he met here at independence hall with about 55 other gentlemen. four months, they after day, they met here in philadelphia to debate the ins and outs of the new constitution. and now, those debates and discussions have seized. well, for the moment. one of the men would go on to be remembered by some as the father of the country. and my master will be known as a father of the constitution. can you imagine him sitting

there with his quill flying across the paper? he did his best to take notes of the discourse of the convention. secret notes which were not to be released until the members have died. but, did he write down everything? he wrote that governor morris of pennsylvania protested, that slavery is a nefarious institution. it is the curse of -- heaven on the states in which it prevailed. you notice the charles typically of south carolina said, may slavery be wrong, it is justified by example to all the world. he even wrote the words of john repledge, a man of that same state, south carolina and said that if the convention thinks that in north carolina, south carolina and georgia would ever agree to the plan unless

they're right to slavery, to import slaves be untouched. the expectation is in vain. the people of those states would never be such fools as to give up so important and interest. so important in interest. yet, my master and the other gentlemen were very careful not to mention this interest by name. none of our names. he saw fit to write that discourse and debates as they drafted this new constitution, but did not mention whether or not i was in the room. he did not mention if i open the windows, lit the candles, offered refreshments or stood there ignored. ignored as i have always been, unless of course something goes wrong. then, i am the first to be

accused. yet, thanks to history and those who chose to write me out of it, you don't even know my name ... >> james madison owned sarah, william, sucky just to name a few people. george washington owned a broom, adam, alice and anthony. the list goes on. george mason owned sampson, vance, brigitte. charles paint me of south carolina owned john, helena, peter, molly, haster and many others. these are just a few names that we can remember today.

george washington knew that the subject of slavery was unavoidable by the time of the constitution's ratification. by that time, the institution was already thoroughly mixed into the foundation of our nation. so skipping ahead in time a little bit from 1770 -- 1787 and 1788, what's happened to the constitution after the civil war? >> the constitution was radically changed after the civil war. there is three amendments that are ratified in the wake of the civil war. we call them the civil war amendments, for the reconstruction amendments. it's the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865. there's the 14th amendment, which is the one we probably know the best. it was in 1868 and attached a bunch of civil rights to all people, but particularly for formerly enslaved people.

so this is where you find the guarantee of equal protection under the law and the guarantee of life, liberty and property without due process of law. you cannot be deprived from it. that's the 14th amendment. the 15th amendment isn't 1870, that guarantees the right to vote regardless of race, not gender, but race. so cumulatively, these amendments completely change the relationship between the states and the federal government. so before the civil war, the idea was that the states would protect your rights from this big bed distant national federal government. after the civil war, it is the federal government that is given the power to enforce these protections against the states. it is the 14th amendment that is used to dismantle jim crow laws when we get to the civil rights movement in the fifties and sixties. the 14th amendment is the source of authority for brown versus board of education in

1954. >> before we get too far there, i want to go back to the 13th amendment a little bit. it abolishes library but if i recall correctly, it has an interesting word or phrase in it. you know when i am speaking of? the word would be accept, the phrase except as punishment for a crime. i think we consider constitutional legacies, and even all the items that we talked about leading up to this point, that that exception is one that is very important to consider as we think about the effects of our history and the effects of years and centuries of prejudice that accumulated overtime. is there anything else -- i cut you off again, i'm so sorry. >> i think you definitely see that exception in the immediate aftermath of reconstruction

amendments. then you move into jim crow, where accept his punishment for crime, who is determining what a crime is? a crime could be loitering for instance. you see people being arrested in jail for that and you see a whole system of prison labor for higher, many call that slavery by another name you always see these little loopholes being used to exploit. to exploit now freed people and free people. but you still see the system that is hard to shake. >> that's the reason we needed the 14th amendment. after the 13th amendment, the southern states and forced these black codes, which were defective slavery. breaking unemployment contract was a crime. so the 14th amendment was ratified to give congress the power to fight those black

codes. that is what i mean about the radical shift between the states and the federal government. >> what happens to the 15th amendment? the >> 15th amendment is about voting rights. again, it looks great and is a big accomplishment, but then it's years and decades and decades of fighting to actually enforce the 15th amendment. it's not until the voting rights act of -- you know, 60 years later. >> yes, progress is not quick. but finally, when we get to those amendments, we start seeing at least legislation and laws being put into place to try to make those changes possible in a way that we were not seeing prior to that. thank you. this anyone want to speculate and share more about the legacy of slavery and the constitution? >> i think it just goes to show that it can't be separated from

this founding document and from the start of our country as a newly-free country. not colonies under the british anymore. that it is entrenched, that no one is untouched by it, even if northern states were affected differently. they were still a part of it as well. we just have to sit on that truth. you know, nothing is going to be gained by downplaying it or by denying it. my pretending that it's not there. we need to sit in the truth and recognize it and recognize what it was and what it is. >> well i'm really even grateful that we are at a place where we can sit and have this kind of conversation about our history, honestly. about our past and try to understand the laws, the constitution, slavery, what's

happening right now around us. we're getting towards the end of our evening. but i do want to ask, especially since this is a -- the final event of our constitution we can for this year. when asked if the constitution did not necessarily include everyone in the, we the people, if everyone was not included as the people. then, why celebrate the constitution? >> i think that's the most important question we can ask ourselves. i personally think there is reason to celebrate. i think we can get that to -- get to that in a minute. by i agree and hope that no one is served by taking the constitution out of context. we have to appreciate it for what it was, which was a flawed document, a deeply flawed document that allowed people to

own other people. you can't separate that. you cannot whitewash that out of the constitution. no one is served by doing that. but if you think of the constitution the way i described it earlier, as a mission statement. as laying out our values of equality, liberty, government by the people, freedom of expression, that is worth celebrating. >> yeah. >> and that motivates every generation to fight for it knowing that it was not perfect, knowing that it is still not perfect, but at least it will is something that will inspire us all to be the better people who are worthy of the words written in that document. >> thank you. i love that because i just feel like we should not just celebrate something blindly without knowing why we are celebrating it. we have to examine it in order to appreciate it so that we can continue to aspire to it. >> thank you. >> i think about how we celebrate. >> how? >> oftentimes, we marked a certain day like september 17th was the actual day.

sometimes you marked it and see it on a calendar, but there is so much that goes on before you get to that moment. then there's so much aftermath that happens later and there is change. so i think this is an opportunity to go back to something that we probably all had in school, but had not thought about in a while. we deal with history every day, deirdre, but the constitution was like a two month crash course when you ask me to be on this panel. looking at with constitution says and when it doesn't. looking at all of the decisions that went into certain parts. so i think this is an opportunity to look and to know. because nobody gains anything by being ignorant of what this says. whether we are in it or not. whether it's explicit or good or bad. this is all part of our history. it's only going to be our gain

and our benefit to know what it says. to know what's has changed. to know what people fought for to get the constitution amended in subsequent acts. there had -- they had to be written to get basic protections in the constitution to be lived out. we owe it to ourselves, our history and the people came before us to do that. >> thank you. that was really beautiful. i agree with both of you. we've only looked at, again, our focus was slavery and the constitution. on this constitution day and henceforth, you know, we can look at the constitution in order to really appreciate something. to appreciate something, you have to examine it and know what it says. so the question i opposed to the audience that you can just

think about as we wrap up this evening is, what do we do with our constitutional rights? examine the constitution so that you can know what those rights are. now, we've only touched on a little bit. this is the tip of the iceberg regarding this conversation. i am so grateful for the opportunity to talk with you about and to be here, spaced up like we are. but there is more to be learned and i know that i also had to do some deep diving and received a lot of help from a lot of people. but some of the sources that i came across that i really enjoyed and that were recommended to me, that i will direct you to also, our james medicines montpelier's website. there is a article on slavery, the constitution and the lasting legacy. there is also a book that hope recommended to me. lawrence goldstone's dark

bargain, slavery, profits and the struggle for the constitution. perhaps you can take a class. [laughs] one of my favorite books that i enjoyed throughout my time at williamsburg is leon higginbotham juniors and the matter of color, race and the american legal process. those are just a few bucks. i'm so grateful that we got to share with, you share with one, another and we got to commemorate this constitution. standing on the shoulders of so many ancestors and our new angel group. peterkin. spurred thanks much for being with us. thanks to everybody who supported this process. have a great night. coming up on american history tv, the topic is women's history. look back at the global fight for women's rights after the

forceful war. after that we hear about how african american women became involved in a women's suffrage movement and other political movements in the first half of the 24 century.

next on american history tv historian mona segel talks about her book the global battle for women's rights after the first world war. the sacramento history state professor argues that the diversity of women from around the worldhe