foundation, a law professor and two actors who portray free and enslaved blacks in williamsburg discuss the role compromises over 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. what >> good evening, and welcome to so important 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 actor interpreters and maybe recognize me for my time in colonial williamsburg, portraying free and enslaved black people. this evening i have the pleasure of serving as your moderator. i am also

joined by ali orr larsen and hope wright 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 institutions as actress, storyteller, writer, researcher, and mentor. please welcome hope wright. >> thank you. >> orr larsen 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 our event. and it's okay to feel something. this reminds us that we care. now while slavery is not the beginning of the story, for the purposes of trying to dive into two very large topics in very little bit of time we will start our meeting with meeting 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. >> thank 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 september 19th, 1787, we find lidia in her home sharing some important news with elizabeth.

it says be it known until all met by this presence, that williamsburg, do emancipate and set free my -- women slave, lidia. under my hand and seal the 20th day of august, in the year of our lord 1787. [laughs] good day. i am lidia. and i'm a free woman. oh elizabeth. i

don't know 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 slave. as you will know elizabeth, the path to freedom for one born a slave is very difficult, almost impossible. a when eve and agnes and 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? i shutter to think they have entered. what has become of all of the people who sought their freedom bu

alligning 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. eloquent talk of these gentleman about the rights of man is enough to make anyone hopeful. and i was hopeful. and the declaration of independence said all men are created equal but nothing changed for us. and as the war started raging, my thoughts turn to our survival. freedom lingering in the back of my mind as we lived through the devastation that war brings. freedom. in the back of my mind. when i learned of the law that was passed in 1782 about the many missions of slaves, allowing the mission of slaves. surely i thought now is a time

when, mr. will freeze. he must free us. and so we waited help. another five years well, is a bit. and for what? the death of ministers law? i will never know what's new mr. with discussed and private. is it her dying wish to see is free or was it her loving wish that kept us enslaved because? am i glad to be free of her death? interesting choice of words, elizabeth. it is complicated. i do mourn. it is hard to believe that she

is gone. she and i developed a way of being with one another throughout the years. i ingratiated myself to her. for us, this is a matter of survival. i helped her manage her household with the utmost skill and in return she allowed me to seek comfort in this life. and for that i am grateful. however, a mistress is a mistress fit. you remember when i begged her to let me travel with her as a servant? 11 years ago when they traveled to philadelphia and 76. yes you do. when they travel to philadelphia for the convention of the declaration of independence. i wanted to go. i want to go so badly. of course benjamin was driving them and he would be gone for as long as they were.

and i was so wanted to immerse myself in the free black population of philadelphia. we would free the slaves there. we would prefer to stay here in care for her child. i mistrust reminded me of my past. you are housekeeper, lidia. your job is to tend to the house. what's neat is there for you to travel through? fanny is my maid servant, she will travel. you will stay here and that is that. this beautiful home is magnificent. oh when benjamin returned from philadelphia, the stories he had about his encounters with

the free blacks there. how we dreamed of that. whispered but we would do with it. thought how we might get it. and now we are free. and poly will be free when she matures and charles is free. but kate, rachel, lidia, lucy, bob, jamie, fanny, paris, isaac, rosa and edward, they will not be free! mr. is giving them to the taal overs as a gift to be divvied up against my dad mistresses nephews and nieces. it makes me want to cry or scream or punch something. how can i celebrate my freedom, benjamins freedom, when so many that i love are still slaves? ferret

media was grappling with her newfound freedom but she has been enslaved for most of her life. now as it relates to libya and this time period, why it is the definition of slavery? how would you define a slave? >> well and slaves person is somebody who was bound by slave laws and i think that is important to point out that slavery is entrenched in the law is here in virginia and in all colonies. as far and wide reaching, the changes of peoples classifications, it puts limits on what they can and cannot do and it's not just one law or a handful of laws, it's hundreds of laws that are amended and strengthen overtime. >> can you speak a little bit about the laws that call a nice lever here in virginia or anywhere? >> before we talk about the

laws there are a couple of cases that kind of set on president. one is in 16 40 and it involves three men who are in servitude. one was an african man by the name of john punch, the other two were men of european descent. victor, a dutchman, and james gregory, scotsman. so they ran from virginia to maryland. we're caught and returned to virginia so they all committed the same time. they were runaways, they were all caught together. they did the same thing. but you begin to see racial differences and treatment here with this case where victor and james gregory were made to serve their original owner on an additional year in the colony of virginia for three years. john punch was made to serve as owner and his owners are his heirs for the rest of his natural life. wherever they lived. >> john punch was black? >> john punch was black.

he is referenced as african in this record. you also have another case that turns out a little different in 16 56 where you have a woman by the name of elizabeth key. and elizabeth he had a mother who was african descent and a father named thomas key who was of english dissent. and rather prominent. what an english law traditionally, everything goes through the father. she had been baptized as a christian so there were, you know, they were restrictions on how christians can be held in bondage, the type of bondage they could be held in and thomas key made arrangements for his daughter that after he died, if she was under the age of 18, she served this family and be considered free at the age of 18. however, great bit of time had passed since her 18th birthday, she was into her twenties. she suit for her freedom on the fact that, you know, it had

been a breach of contract but also two very important points is that she had been baptized as a christian and her father was a free englishman and we see a different outcome with this case where elizabeth key was found to be a free woman and she was also paid in bushels of corn i believe, barrels of corn, for the additional time served in which she should have been freed. so these are two legal cases that showed different precedent and with the first laws passed, you can actually tell it's a little reactionary because the first wave lott in virginia when it's passed in 16 62 it says, where there have been questions as to the status of children born of an african woman and a white father. this law in 16 62 states that the status of the child is that of the mother buying her free. >> which is something different than what you usually see in english kamala? >> yes.

everything goes through the father. things are bestowed. you know the first son inherits the most as rights title would have won. this is something that will be very important as we do get a little closer to the constitution. we have set into motion a system of servitude and it's hereditary and by the gets to the 17 eighties, most people who are large slaveowners they have, you know, gain those and save people through national increase, through inheritance, through galleries. so they are not to say that people are not purchasing slaves. that is something that is still very much going on. but when you think of people who own hundreds of enslaved people and you look at someone who's own 200, it's very likely that they did not purchased 200. they may have purchased a dozen or so. when you look at that property and assess a value to the

property, oftentimes when you look at inventory through the period, most of the value of the things that people own when they passed away is going to be invested in and slave. so just that law alone has, you know, provided a system in which wealth is built just through the national wall. that is just one. so do you find other laws? are there other laws that are codified in 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 christian. in 1667, we see a lot past that baptism does not alter a person's status, bond or free. in addition to elizabeth key, there were other people. that is something that should be pointed out. black people were still very active

in trying to use the legal system at this time. i don't want this 17th, but into the 18th century. now this line 1667 is closing another window. you still continue to see and slaved people being baptized in parishes closest to us here in williamsburg, and in other parishes. but oftentimes this usually becomes a way to keep track on a slaved person. at least another law, the classification of enslaved people from the very beginning has always been that of property. if you are indentured or if you are in apprentice, you have certain rights by virtue of being recognized as human in the eyes of the

law. but from the very beginning, 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 as places where enslaved people show up. i think when researching and slave people, that is places i know that i have used, because hope has taught me to use them. so can we also get into lidia receives her freedom, and that interpretation that you all saw. what were some pathways to freedom for enslaved people, especially once those laws started coming down in the 16 sixties? you know of any enslaved people that received their freedom? >> before we kind of a big rib vision and looking at slave laws, also

known as the black codes, oftentimes it's individuals. it's one individual who petitions the court or petitions the governors council. but when the black codes are kind of solidified in 1723, you see a lot past that states for an enslaved person to be granted omission, they would have to perform some type of meritorious or face or deed. and even then, the only group of people who could confer the status of freedom could grant that would be the governor's council. we know there were probably 50 or 60 or so of these petitions that go before the governors council. they are approved at about 2 thirds or so. that is still a very small number of people who gain their freedom that way. >> i was just looking -- that is just looking at virginia. >> yes, that is just looking at virginia.

virginia in the 18th century was a very agrarian society. cash crops of the 18th century, such as tobacco, indigo, sugar, rice, they led us to believe that slavery was only in the south. now, will you all be able to speak a little bit about the original differences over slavery heading into the constitution? >> well, it is by and large, there are 2 definitions. a slave society is basically where half the population is enslaved. that is mostly the south where it is a slave society. you know, tobacco, indigo and rice, that you mention. but the north is still very much a society with slaves. you have people working in homes a little bit more and taverns. skilled trades, not that that did not

happen in the south as well. but by and large, the whole economy is based on the agriculture there. so there is never an absence of slavery ever in any of the 13 original colonies. actually, at the same time the john podge case is going on in virginia, massachusetts is the first colony to legalize slavery in the original 13. >> did you want to add anything? >> i was going to say the early colonies, slavery was pretty much equivalent -- the rate of slavery was pretty equivalent in the north and south. by the time we get to 1787, there are pretty stark regional differences. there's a lot more enslaved people in the south than the north, for the reasons i hope suggests with the difference in economies and agriculture and longer growing season. this thought that you might need more slave labor to take advantage of the growing season. so that sets up some pretty fierce battle lines when we get to the convention in 1787. >> let's go there.

let's jump right in to 1787 and that time period. about how many delegates to the constitutional convention owned slaves? >> it is 55 delegates to the constitution convention. we've all heard the stories. it's a hot summer in philadelphia and they've taped up the windows. of those 55 people, 25 of them on slaves. so that is almost half. but i think it is important to recognize that even the delegates who did not owned slaves, there was not a lot of talk of racial equality. it's not a racial paradise even in the states where slavery is slowly being phased out. there's still a consensus as you were talking about before, that in slate people or property. there's a lot of talk about property rights and the property rights of people who own slaves. that is shared among all of the delegates in the constitution. even the anti slavery voices which stopped short

of saying that a natural government could divest a person of their property rights. >> is that something that you all want to share? you mentioned that slavery was starting to be phased out. we are post revolution. we are several years removed from it. are there states that are trying to do away with slavery? >> pennsylvania is the first. the quaker's are the first. then there were gradual emancipation schemes where you might not convert someone's freedom right away, but when they reach a certain age, then they are given their freedom. so this is starting to happen in some colonies by the time we get to the constitutional convention. but it is not the norm. i think virginia even makes a law that makes it easier for masters to submit enslaved people after -- or towards the end of the american revolution. >> so now that we are in 1787, thinking back on it, what were they

trying to do? what is the constitution? what were they trying to create. ? why create a constitution? >> yeah, what is all the fuss about? so, the constitution is the paramount law in the united states. that means it trumps all conflicting laws. it also means it's really hard to amend. so i think of the constitution and part is a mission statement. so it embodies values that we share as americans and that we strive for. another really important part of the constitution was to set up the national government. so it's a long story, but the short version is that the government they were existing under, the articles of confederation, was failing. congress did not have enough power. they could not regulate commerce. they could not tax. instead, they had to ask the states for money. it was operating more like a league of nations, of 13 different countries, as opposed to one united states of america. >> is that sort of how the articles of

confederation were used? >> the articles of confederation required unanimity in order to change anything. you are never going to get that. rhode island was always a stinker. they always held out. love you rhode island [laughs] >> it's just a different change from we, the 13 sovereign states, all of whom have our own rules to we the people. that was a huge change to have popular sovereignty. so a big function of the constitutional convention was creating and instilling the national government that we now know. >> well. we the people ... so, knowing that we alluded to how slavery denied the humanity of people. where in the constitution is sleigh we mentioned? is it mentioned? today say anything about slaves? >> yeah, so it's an interesting

omission. the word slavery is never used in the constitution. they use euphemisms like other persons. i think that omission 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 was going to be the achilles heel of the country. so i think that omission is telling. even though they don't mention slavery by name though, there are 3 explicit provisions in the constitution that protect slave owners. that protect slavery. the first one is probably the one that everybody is most familiar with. that is the 3 5th clause. so you all remember that the way our congress is set up, there's 2 chambers. there is a senate and house of representatives. reaching that was the great compromise. it was to make sure the small states and the big states, that everybody was happy. because all the states got 2 senators. >> everybody.

>> not everybody. every state. good clarification. >> so the house of representatives is a portion by population. so this is the big fight. it's about power. and the southern states would like to count slaves towards their numbers so that they have more representatives in congress. the northern states do not want. that it's a fight over who has more representatives in congress. but i want to be clear, it is not a fight about morality, it is a fight about power. so even the northern and delegates, they are arguing, you know, that slaves or property. it's really pretty ugly. the southerners are saying we want to count them as whole people. they are not doing it because they are treating them like whole people. they are doing it because they want more representatives in congress. >> right. it seems like we see that throughout the 18th century. and slave people being used to the advantage of slave

owners to gain power. is the 3 fifths compromise -- well, i think you touched on this a little bit. it seems like the 3 5th compromise 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 3 fifths rule? what was the motivation -- well, we talked about it a little bit. but does 3 fits shop anywhere else leading up to this point? >> they would have been familiar with the fraction because madison used it in a proposed amendment to the articles when dealing with taxes. he had used 3 fifths of a person in order to count for purposes of taxation under the article. 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 a scene as sort of a very important steppingstone to actually reaching a constitution. to reaching a document that would tie all 13 colonies together. and without it, the consensus was that we would not have a constitution because those 5 southern states we're ready to walk. >> you think they really would have done it? i don't know. we will never know. we will never know now. >> but that is what they said. >> so you had mentioned there were 3 sections the directly related to slavery. what is the 2nd one? >> the 2nd one has to do with the importation of enslaved people. this is the foreign slave trade. this was really controversial in the convention because under the articles of confederation, congress did not have power to regulate the slave trade and the

southern states wanted to stay that way. the northern delegates for much more to fight the slave trade than they were the domestic slavery. i think part of that is because of the property rights that we were talking about before. there is no vested property rights when you are talking about the importation of new people. i think part of it is also just politics. so the upper south like virginia was actually making a fair bit of money selling slaves to the deep south. it is to their economic advantage to stop the corn play straight. that's pretty grim. >> i know i have heard hope tell me before that virginia started very much before making money. i imagine it was the same for all of the other colonies in that probably did not change when they became states, especially after the war. so what -- >> would happen? but so this is actually a quid pro quo. so in exchange for extending

the slave trade until 1808, so in the constitution, congress was not allowed to stop the slave trade until 18 away, even then it was an option but in exchange for that, congress gets the congress clause which turns out to be a really important source of power for the national government. the southern states did not want congress to have a congress clause without a super majority and they gave in on that as long as they got to protect their foreign slave trade for 20 years was. jefferson did eliminate the slave trade in 1808 as soon as the constitution allowed him to do it. this is one of the two provisions in the constitution that was not amendable. that is how -- the fight was so vicious that once they reach that compromise, it was not amendable. well >> that's fascinating to because it links and with what hope was talking about national increase almost perpetuating itself, which probably was

happening at greater rates in virginia, then in some of those southern -- more southern states that people had a lot less of a life expectancy growing. things like race and indigo. thank you. now you said there was one more. the third one. wow. >> please. the third one is the fugitive slave caucus and this is the clause that gives southern slave owners of right to have their enslaved people return to them if they escape to the north. here's 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 in the south. the northerners really hated having to return free -- formerly enslaved people who ran a way back to their owners in the south. they hated that. but at the time of the convention in 1787, this was

not 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. it was just -- there was no debate. there was no objection. it was just another example of how, even if they were anti slavery voices at the convention, and there were, and franklin, alexander hamilton, those voices stopped short of thinking that you could divest a property owner of the property. it is not how we think. i mean it's really jarring today to think of it that way. >> i imagine to like in that time period from the 16 hundreds to 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 believed to be their property or the humanity of people that they are telling

themselves are not human, law it still does not make sense to me. it still does not make sense to me but look i am a 24 century kind of woman law. i cut you off again, i'm sorry. did you want to finish? >> there is an obvious tension between the all men are created equal rhetoric of the declaration of independence and treating humans as property. that is an obvious tension. i do not want it to come across like they did not recognize that. like there were plenty of people that recognized that tension. abigail adams recognize that tension in a letter. but it was what just a nonstarter, i guess, to think in 1787, this practice that became so ingrained that they were going to come out with a constitution that abolished it. >> thank you. thank you so much. we have a question from -- school. 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 there is five of the 13 colonies are in the south and they are not going to ratify an anti slavery constitution. and everyone knows that. there were 25 of those men, as i said, like over almost 50% of those men actually owned slaves and even the ones that did not, we're not pushing for racial equality so it's a very different world than the world that we know what. so it's sometimes hard to put yourself back in that perspective was. yeah, they were five states that would not have signed a constitution that gave congress the power to abolish slavery. that is why we had a civil war. >> it seems like that became inevitable was just delayed. it's interesting, before you had mentioned about why -- it's gone now look.

about like choosing to see them as property and not as people and about how they -- that is how they saw them. even in like gazette ads that we have read and have considered, you see the social recognition of their humanity in some cases referencing people who have gone to look for the wives, gone to look for their husbands, even though legally enslaved people could not marry. and so it seems again whenever it's in the favor of the delegates, that they choose whatever is bet 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 will see compromise affecting our constitution and how it affected people at the

time? do you have any examples? help >> out i start and you could come up with people of the time? one thing to think about is i mean you can think of the constitution in two ways. so they were writing a political document, a document that was a political compromise, which meant there would be concessions. not everybody is going to be happen. in the ratification debates, actually, the northerners think it's actually put slavery on the road to extinction. that is a reason to sign. the southerners think, no, it is protecting slave interest in that is a reason to sign it. so in some ways that is an example of an effective compromise if the two sides are taking what they want to see. but another way to look at the constitution is as a statement of values and if you look at it that way, they did not want to write the word slavery and 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 hope slavery was on its way out. that does not --

you know, let's not throw them a parade, right? that does not mean it's cause to celebrate but i do think you can look at it as they do want to taint the document that they were hoping to endure from generations with the horrors of slavery. >> it's aspirational, helpful. thank you. did you want to add anything? >> i think when you think of compromise, it was these 55 men were in a room that we're making the compromises with each other but it was at the expense of so many and especially of enslaved individuals where decisions were being made about them and, you know, if, you know, they were not even look at the table in position to say so and that is something you see. once a law is written, we see how just the definition of property was written into the law and how it still had all these affects 100 plus years later that when compromises have to be made, it's at the

expense, oftentimes of free and enslaved black people. >> we do not have a voice. >> yeah. >> and we often work at these questions about, well what about women want? this is not to be confused with women because women come in all shapes, colors, and complexions and so, again, we are focusing primarily on women of african descent leaving. the women were not at the table, they did have rights white -- women did have rights unlike black women of the time period. thank you. what >> and that goes back to the first question you asked hope, which is what is slavery? we it's legalized ownership of another human being buying and selling and abusing and having the legal right to do that. that makes it in a totally different category than anyone else who is not in that room. >> thank you. you put that perfectly. thank you so much.

when >> you mentioned just, you know, runaway what is going to your wife even though it was not something that was legally recognized. just what's being defined as property, just that classification alone cut you off from so many things. from being legally married to someone. from, you know, as a parent, especially a mother, as an enslaved women, before you even bring children into this world, any children that you bring forth, they will automatically belong to the person that owns you. so just that classification alone would, it reverberates through history when. and what it means to you and what you are restricted from. the benefits and privileges and writes that you do not get because you are not seen as human. >> thank you. >> we continue to deal with the effects of choices made in the past. now according to gary nash in his book, the forgotten fit,

the argument that slavery could not be abolished weeks of the dangerous and indeed odious concept of historical inevitability. almost always an historical writings, a concept in vans 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? >> i mean the difficult answer is no. >> the honest answer. >> the difficult answer but it's no. there is a lot of truth in that statement and i do not mean to excuse the man in that room that made the decisions they did, but according to the debate records, it was a nonstarter. i mean it was not even

something that alexander hamilton or ben franklin thought they were authorized to bring to the convention, even if they were willing to fight for it in their own states. this is something i should have mentioned. not just a property rights idea was entrenched, but the idea of state sovereignty was so entrenched that it would not be a national solution to this problem. that it would be individual states weight 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 with power to abolish slavery. >> wow. thank you. now we know, as you mentioned, that about 25 of those 55 delegates that were in the room, they did own enslaved people when. slavery was still present in the united states and even today with researching this

topic, looking back over the 200 years, trying to find information about not only the debates but the people that those gentlemen own. i have been hitting a lot of walls but right now, you are going to see an interpretation that takes place in philadelphia where. in 1787 law. >> do you remember me? no? well perhaps you know my master.

he met here at independence hall with about 55 of the gentlemen. for months, day 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 acquittal 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 had died. but did he write down everything? he wrote that was --

a pennsylvania protested. that slavery is enough areas institution. it is the curse of heaven on the states where prevailed. he noted that charles pickney of south carolina said, that is slavery the wrong, it is justified by its example to all the world. he even wrote the words of genre tillage, a man of that same state, south carolina said that if the convention thinks that north carolina, south carolina and georgia would ever agree that to the plan unless they're right to slavery, to import slaves, be untouched. the expectations is in vain. the people of those states whenever would be such fools as to give up so important and interest. so important and 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 the discourse and the debates as they drafted the new constitution, but did not mention whether or not i was in the room. he did not mention if i open the windows, with 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, sukey just to name a few people. george washington -owned abram, adam, alice and anthony. the list goes on. george mason owned sampson, vance, bridget. charles pinckney of south carolina owned john, helena, peter, molly, hester 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 fairly mixed into the foundation of our new nation. so skipping ahead in time a little bit from 1787 and

1788, what's happened to the constitution after the civil war? >> so, the constitution was radically changed after the civil war. there's 3 admits that were ratified in the wake of the civil war. we call them the civil war amendments, or 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 is an 1870. the 15th amendment guarantees the right to vote regardless of race, not gender, not sex,

but race. so cumulatively, these 3 amendments just completely changed the relationship between the states and the federal governments. so before the civil war, the idea was that the states would protect you right from the big bad distant national federal government. after the civil war, it's the federal government that is giving the power to enforce these protections against the states. so it is the 14th amendment, for example, that is used to dismantle gym crow laws when we get to the civil rights movement in the fifties and sixties. it's the 14th amendment that 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 is -- it abolishes slavery. but if i recall correctly, it has an interesting word or phrase in it. do you know when i am speaking of? the word would be

except, and the phrase is except for punishment as a crime. i think we -- as 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 the reconstruction amendments. then you move into gym crow where, except his punishment for crime. well, who's determining what a crime is? a crime could be loitering for instance. you see people being arrested and jailed for that. you see a whole system of prison labor for hire to,

which many call slavery by another name. so you always see these little loopholes being used to exploit now freed people and free people. but you still see the systems are hard to shake. >> yeah, that's the reason we needed the 14th amendment. it's because after the 13th amendment, the southern states enforce these black codes, which were like defect oh slavery. so breaking in employment 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. >> then what happens with the 15th amendment? >> if 15th amendment is all about voting rights. of course, again, it looks great and it is a big accomplishment, but then it is years and decades and decades of fighting to actually enforce the 15th amendment. it is not until the

voting rights act of 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 sure more about the legacy of slavery in 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's entrenched. but no one is untouched by it, even if northern

straits -- states were affected differently, they were so part of it as well. we just have to sit in that truth. you know, nothing is going to be gained by downplaying it or by denying it or by pretending that it's not there. we need to sit in that truth and recognize it and recognize what it was and what it is. >> right, i'm really even grateful that we are in a place now that we can sit and have this kind of conversation. honestly about our history and about our past and trying to understand the laws and the constitution and slavery. what's happening right now around us. i'm getting to -- towards the end of our evening, but i want to ask especially since this is the final event about our constitution weekend for this year. i wanted to ask 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 is the most important question that we can ask ourselves. i personally think there is reason to celebrate, and i can get to that in a minute, but i agree with hope that nobody 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. and then you can't separate that, you cannot whitewash that out of the constitution. nobody 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. that also motivates every generation to fight for it, knowing that it wasn't perfect, knowing that it is still not perfect. but at least it's 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 we can continue to aspire to it. thank you. >> i think about how we celebrate. oftentimes, we marked a certain day like september 17th was the actual day. sometimes you market, you see on the calendar, but there's so much that goes on before you get to that moment. then there's so much aftermath that happens later and there's 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 it in

a while. i mean, we deal in history every day, dierdre, but the constitution i was on a 2 month crash course when you asked me to be on this panel. just looking at with the constitution says and what it doesn't. looking at all the decisions that went into certain parts. so i think this is an opportunity to look and to know because no one gains anything by being ignorant of what this says. whether it's explicit or good or bad, this is all part of our history. it's only going to be our gain into our benefit to know what it says. to know what has changed. to know what people thought port to get the constitution amendment -- amended in subsequent acts that had to be written to get basic protections that are in the constitution to be

lived out. so we owe it to ourselves, our history and the people who 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 on the constitution. and on this constitution day and, henceforth you know, we can look at the constitution in order to really appreciate something you have to examine it and know what it says. so the question that i pose to the audience that you could just think about as we wrap up this evening is what do we do with our constitutional rights? and's examine the constitution so we can know where those rights are. we've only touched on a little bit. this is the tip of the iceberg regarding this conversation. and i'm so grateful

for the opportunity to talk with you both and to be here, spaced out 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, but i really enjoyed and that were recommended to me, that i will direct you to also, our james mattis since montpelier's website. there is a article on slavery, the constitution and the lasting legacy. there's also a book that hope recommended to me. lawrence gold stones dark bargain. slavery, profits and the struggle for the constitution. perhaps you could take a class. one of my favorite books that i enjoy throughout my time at colonial williamsburg is lean taken bottom junior, in the matter of color.

race in the american legal process. those are just a few books. i am so grateful that we got to share with you and that we got to share with one another and that we got to commemorate this constitution weekend standing on the shoulders of so many ancestors and our new angel, ruth bader ginsburg. thank you all so much for being with us and thank you to everyone who supported this process. have a great night.

house of representatives historian matthew was new ski into later years artifacts and photographs to trace the history of women in congress. >> the history of women in congress begins with jeanette rankin, who is elected to the house in 1916 from montana. she's elected to the house for years before women had the