convention in philadelphia, the issue of slavery was frequently debated throughout the summer of 1787. next, a discussion hosted by the colonial williamsburg foundation, a law professor and two actors who portray free and saved blacks at 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. >> good evening, and welcome to sew important and 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. buit this evening, i have the pleasure of serving as your moderator. i am also joined by ally orr larsen, and hope wright. hope wright, my dear colleague began her career at colonial williamsburg when she was in the third grade. she was a performer in a play "on my own time" in 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. >> our special guest, ally larsen, is a professor of law and director of the institute of bill of rights law. since she joined the william and mary faculty in 2010, she has received many awards, including

the statewide outstanding faculty award in the rising star category. professor larsen is a scholar of constitutional law and legal institutions with a focus on how information dynamics affect both. 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 with elizabeth di rosario. ali, did you know that hope has portrayed elizabeth? hope, why don't you present elizabeth di rosario? >> elizabeth di rosario? 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 to george width, 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. >> i says, be it known unto all met by this presence, that i george of williamsburg, do emancipate and set free my black woman 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 a pendulum swinging between relation 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, very difficult, almost impossible. and eve, and agnes, and lucy, told me of their plan

to 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. aligning themselves with the so-called enemies of their so-called masters. no, i thought, this is not my path. benjamin agreed. so we waited. we waited for his words and needs to align. eloquent talk about the rights of men is enough to make anyone hopeful. and i was hopeful, declaration of independence said all men are created equal. but nothing changed for us. and as the war starte raging my, thoughts turn to our survival. lingering in the back of my

mind as -- devastation that war brings, 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. mr width, 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. width discussed in private. was it her dying wish to see us free? or was it her living wish that kept us enslaved? am i glad to be free of her? interesting choice of words, elizabeth. it's complicated. i

do mourn my mistress. it's hard to believe that she's gone. she and i developed a way of being with one another throughout the years. i ingratiated myself to her. four us, this is a matter of survival. i helped her manage her household with the utmost skill and cleverness. and in return, she allowed me a few comforts in this life, and for that i'm grateful. however, a mistress is a mistress. you remember when i begged her to let me travel with her as her maid servant. yes, 11 years ago when they travel to

philadelphia in 76. yes, you do. 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 for them, and he would be done for as long as they were. i so wanted to immerse myself in the free black population of philadelphia. the freed blacks outnumbered the slaves there. and paris, paris was so young. i'm sure that fanny would have preferred to stay here and care for her child. but mistress reminded me of my place. you are housekeeper, lidia. your job is to tend to the house. what need is they need to

travel? fanny, 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 encounters with the free blacks there. how we dreamed of freedom then. we were scared about what we would do with it. plotted. and now we are free. paulie will be free when she matures, and charles is free. kate, rachel, lidia, lucy, doug, jamie, danny, paris, isaac, edward, and abel will not be free. doug mr. wilson is giving

them to the tollivers as a gift. they are being developed amongst my dead nephews and nieces. i want to scream or cry, or punch something. how can i celebrate when so many i love our still slaves? >> 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 a slave? >> well, an enslaved person is someone who is bound by enslaved law, and i think it's important to point out that slavery as entrenched in the law is here in virginia, and all colonies. 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? >> alright. well, before we talked about the laws, there are a couple of cases that set a precedent. what is in 1640, and it involves three men who were 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 caughtt and returned to virginia. so they all committed the same crime. 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 james gregory were made to

serve their original owner one additional year and the colony of virginia three years. john was me to serve his owner and his owners assides 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 1656, when you have a woman by the name of elizabeth key, and elizabeth key had a mom who was of african descent, and a father named thomas key who was of english descent, 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 bondage 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 20s and she sued for her freedom on the fact that it had been breach of contract, but also 2 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 key was found to be a free woman and she was also paid in barrels of corn, i believe, for the additional time served in which she should have been free. so these are two legal cases that show the legan precedent. the first law passed. you can tell that it's a little reactionary. the first label in virginia when it's passed in 1662, it says whereas there have been questions as to status of children board of a

african women and a white father. this law in 1662 states that the status of a child is on a mom -- bonder free. >> is this different from uc and english --? >> 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 1780s, most people who are large slave owners, they've gained those enslaved people through natural increase

through inheritance, through wives doweries, 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 purchase 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 own before they pass away will be invested in slaves. so just the law alone provided a system in which wealth is built just through the natural increase. that's just one. that's just one. >> so 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 a question. so in 1667, we see a law passed the

says that baptism doesn't alter a person's status, bonder free. in addition to elizabeth, there were other people. that's something that should be pointed out. black people were still very active in trying to use the legal system at this time. actually it's fascinating. now this law in 1667 is closing another window. and you still continue to see enslaved people being baptized by the parish closest to us in williamsburg and in their parish records. but oftentimes, this usually becomes a way to keep track of the birth of an enslaved person. -- it leads to another law, the classification of enslaved people on the very beginning has always been that property. that is people where

if you were an apprentice, 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 where people show up. 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 enslaved people?

especially once those laws were coming in the 1660s. do you know any enslaved people that received their freedom? >> the big revision and looking at slave laws, also known as the black laws, oftentimes it's one individual who petitions the court or petitions the governor's council, but one the black votes are sort of solidified in 1723, you see a law passed that states that for an enslaved person to be granted immunization 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 manunition 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. -- such tobacco, and sugar, ice, they lead us to believe that slavery was only in the south. now, will you all be able to speak a bit on the regional differences over slavery heading into the constitution? >> well, it's, by and large, there are two definitions of slave society. basically i think it's like we're half the population is enslaved and

that's mostly the south, where it's slave society. tobacco, --, 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 an absence of slavery ever, in 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 1787, there 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 slave labor enabler to take advantage of the growing season. so that sets a fierce battle lines when we get to the convention in 1787. >> let's go there. let's jump right into 1787 and that time period. about how many delegates in the constitution convention owned slaves? >> there's 55 -- convention, where we hear 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 phased out. there's still a consensus that 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. stop short of saying that -- 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 phased 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 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, then 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 1787, we're thinking back on it, what where they tried to do? what's the constitution? why create a constitution? >> yes, what's the fuss about? so the constitution is the paramount 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 though was to set up the national government. so it's a long story but the short version is that the government they we are existing under, the articles of confederation, was failing. 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 13 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 unanimity in order to change anything. you are never going to get. that rhode 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 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. >> wow, we the people. so, knowing that, we alluded to how slavery denied the humanity of people. where in the

constitution is slavery mentioned? is it mentioned? do they say anything about slaves? >> yeah, so it is an interesting omission. the word slavery is never used in the constitution. the use euphemisms like the person's. 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 would 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 three explicit provisions in the constitution that protect slave owners, that protect slavery. the first one is probably the one that everyone is most familiar with, and that is the three fifths 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 the great compromise to make sure the small states and big states, everyone was happy, because in the senate all the states got to senators. not everybody. every state. good clarification. but the house of representatives is apportioned by population. so the big fight is about power. the southern states like two can't sleeve towards their numbers so that they have more representatives in congress. the northern states do not 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 are property. it's really pretty 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. >> all right, it seems like we see that throughout the 18th century of enslaved people being used to the advantage for slave 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? what was the motivation? does three fifths show up anywhere else leading up to this point in 1887? >> they would have been familiar with the fraction because madison had used it in

proposed amendment to the 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? i don't know. 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. the 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 we were talking about before. there's no vested property rights when you're talking about deportation. i think part of it is also just politics. that upper south 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 happened? >> yeah. >> this is actually quid pro quo. in exchange for extending the slave trade in 1808, it so in the constitution, congress isn't allowed to stop the slave trade until 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 it links 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 slave 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 the 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 an 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 -- 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 an 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

that is why we had a civil 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 gone 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 slave 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 cause to celebrate. 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 or in a position to have a say. 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 shades, colors, and complexions. we are focusing primarily on women of african descent, even though women were not at the table,

they did have rights, white women, unlike black women of the time period. thank you. >> let's go back to the last question that you asked. the 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 a runaway as an 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 an enslaved woman 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 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 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 by those writing on behalf of victims of those mistakes. the idea of historical

inevitability is as winners 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 an interpretation of something that takes place in philadelphia in 1787.

>> do you remember me? perhaps you know my master. he met here at independent fall with 35 other gentlemen. four 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 ceased. for the moment. one of the men would go on to be remembered by some as the founder 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 pickney of south carolina said that if 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 their 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 opened 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, sookie, just to name a few people. george washington owned abraham, adam, alice and anthony. the list goes on. george mason owned sampson, nance, brigitte. charles pinkney of south carolina owned john, helena, peter, molly, esther, 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 1787 and 1788, what happened to the constitution after the civil war? >> the constitution was radically changed after the civil war. so, there is three amendments 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 comes from the 14th amendment. the 15th amendment isn't 1870, that guarantees the right to vote regardless of race, not gender, not sex, 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. it's the 14th amendment is the source of authority for brown v. 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 slavery, 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 except, the phrase except as punishment for a crime. i think we consider our 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. >> well, 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 again 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. because after the 13th amendment, the southern states enforced these black codes, which were defacto 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. >> and then what happens to the 15th amendment?

>> thr 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. does anyone want to speculate and share more about the legacy of slavery, of 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-freed 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 the final event of our constitution we can 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's the most important question that we can ask ourselves. i personally think there is reason to celebrate. i think we can get to that in a minute. but i agree with 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 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 mark a certain day like september 17th was the actual day. and sometimes you marked it, and see it on a calendar, but there is so much that goes on before you get to that moment. and

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. i mean, wee deal with history every day, deirdre, but the constitution was like a two month crash course when you asked me to be on this panel, and just looking at what 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. this is all 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 that 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 pose to the audience that you can just think about as we wrap up this evening is, what do we do with our constitutional rights? and

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 both 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 madison's 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] law school, and 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. and those are just a few books, and i am so grateful that we got to share with you, we've got to share with one another, and we've 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. >> during the week, on c-span 3, we are featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend. wednesday night, prohibition. a number of historians along with jeffrey rosen of the national constitution center talk about the reasons for the temperance movement beginning in the 19th century.

the problems with enforcing and then repealing the 18th amendments of the constitution. watch wednesday at 8 pm eastern on c-span three, and enjoy american history tv this week and every weekend. >> a panel of scholars argues the u.s. constitution was an anti slavery document rather than a pro slavery one, as others have claimed. the panel explores how various political groups interpretive the constitution during antebellum fights over slavery. the heritage foundation hosted this event, they provided the video. >> good morning. my name is angela sailor, and i am the vice president of the institute at the heritage foundation. on behalf of our president, and my colleague john malcolm, vice president of the institute for constitutional government and director of the media center for legal and judicial studies, welcome to the heri i