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 heritage is

foundations reserve the constitution series. today's event is called slavery and the constitution. the question of the hour is whether the constitution is pro slavery, or anti slavery. history has shown us a great leader, and reasonable men and women have changed their viewpoints on this question. frederick douglass, the foremost black abolitionist in the 18 forties called the constitution a radically and essentially pro slavery document, but by the 18 fifties, douglas changed his mind, concluding the constitution, one construed in light of well established rules of legal interpretation is a glorious liberty document. as we war over america's heart and soul, many are asking what convinced douglas to changes viewpoint? some declare it was what the framers had hoped would

preserve a legacy of freedom for generations to come, silence. douglas asked if the constitution were intended to be by its framers, a slave holding instrument, then why would either slavery, slave holding, nor slave be anywhere found in it? that is not the focus of those who challenged the integrity of the constitution. some who challenged the integrity of the constitution say it is weakened by the existence of slavery in the united states. at the time of the constitution was adopted. slave holders took part in the framing of the constitution, and say slave holders in their hearts intended to secure certain advantages and that instrument for slavery. as americans, [inaudible] how do we move forward and bolster the present a

opportunity to live as freeman? today, we have invited you here to participate in an awful discussion with leading historians and leading scholars about one of the most divisive issues being debated in our nation today. i challenge you to step back and feel the opportunity to debate the constitution as a close pro slavery or anti cyber document as a pathway forward, reducing racial tension and creating a platform for resolution. i challenge you to step forward and transform the debate into action. action that promotes the american identity and celebrates the benefits granted to citizens of the free asked nation the world has ever known. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome my colleague, paul arcing who will moderate today's panel. paul was the john, barbara, and victoria senior legal research fellow in the center for legal

and judicial studies. paul works on criminal justice policy, drug policy, and regulatory policy. before joining heritage, paul held various positions with the federal government in washington d.c.. at the u.s. department of justice, paul served as an assistant to the solicitor general, and argued 20 cases before the u.s. supreme court. he was also an attorney in the criminal divisions, organized crime and racketeering section. paul received his law degree from stanford law school, where he was a published member of the stanford law review. he clerk for judge robert more of the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, and he received his master degree and public policy from george washington university. he also holds a bachelor's degree for philosophy from washington university in lexington virginia, where of course, he graduated summa cum

laude with honors in philosophy. ladies and gentlemen, my colleague, paul lurking. >> angela, thank you for that wonderful introduction, and thank you to our audience. you have numerous demands on your time, and numerous opportunities, how you will spend. it on behalf of heritage and myself, i want to thank you for taking part of your day, to listen to a discussion in which we have several scholars and legal subjects and history who will address the issue of slavery and the constitution. what made this a contemporary issue, was that from the day the new york times magazine published 60 19 project one year ago, the opinions expressed and that network touched nerves in american historical and political scholarship, as well as an american life. of the 16 19 project, was the

true beginning of american history was not 1776, when america declared its independence from england. but it was in 60 19, when the first african slaves arrived in america at jamestown. the project also claimed that we ever entering benefits the nation has seen and has granted to the world are attributable to the nation's slaveowners past. while the 60 19 project was correct to condemn slavery, particularly on one of its anniversaries, as a despicable institution and no one is sorry that the 13th amendment and it past the civil war, but the 60 19 project is not a work of historical scholarship. numerous historians have objected to the project on the ground that it contains an erroneous view of this, and a large number of americans have objected to it on the grounds that it was left as political edge cropped. with us today, are several

well-known scholars who will discuss one aspect of that debate. what did the constitution say about slavery before the 13th amendment became law? did the constitution protect the rights of slave owners, or did the constitution forbid slave owning? or to the constitution avoid taking either of those hesitations and left the matter entirely to the political process? our first speaker today will be timothy, vice president of litigation who's part of a legal staff that holds the clarence and catherine duncan of the constitutional government. he has litigated in importing cases involving individual liberty, private property, and constitutional law. is the author of six books as well as dozens of scholarly articles on various different topics, including one on star

trek. following timothy will be professor allen, he is a visiting fellow at the sinai center for american studies -- foundation. a senior research scholar in the council of humanities at princeton university, and director of the james madison programs institute to the initiative in politics and statesmanship. professor is an acclaimed scholar of american history whose ratings have been recognized as having made important contributions to scholarly and public understanding of 19th century america. a winner of the 2018 gravity prize, here it is phd in history from the university of pennsylvania. he also holds an honourary doctorate of history from lincoln college. up next, will be professor sean. he's a george henry davis professor of american history,

at princeton university, where he teaches both political and social american history. he received his ph.d. in history from yale university, after earning bachelors degrees from columbia university, and bail college oxford university. he's the author of numerous books, most recently one entitled, no property in man, slavery and anti-slavery at the nation's founding. a contributing editor to the new republic and a member of the editorial boards of descent and of democracy, professor lectures frequently, and he has written some 300 articles, reviews, and op-ed pieces for publication such as the new york times, and the los angeles times. following that, will be professor lucas, the john -- professor of politics at washington university. he also teaches american history and government at ashlyn university in ohio.

summer programs for the claremont institute and high school teacher workshops sponsored by the center. the gilder claremont institute and the liberty fund. he's a trustee of the supreme court historical society, former president of the abraham lincoln institute, and was a member of the scholarly board of advisers from the abraham lincoln bicentennial commission. he's the author of the recently published book, lincoln and the american founding. now, to help frame the discussion, i will play the devils advocate. i will argue that the constitution protected the rate of slave holding states to create that peculiar and evil institution through law. each of our speakers will then be able to say bye i am wrong. with that, let me make the case. i will do it in two ways, first, i will start by making the argument in a manner that will

be well-known to lawyers today, and second, i will make the argument in a way that would be most persuasive to people in the 18th and 19th century. if you start looking at today's perspective, you start with the text of the constitution, and the most obvious point is there is no 13th amendment in the original constitution. now, that omission is significant. it perhaps is the dog that did not work. the framers knew how to ban certain practices or types of legislation that they found undesirable. congress cannot pass bills, expose factor laws, export taxes, or preferences for some cities over others, or titles of nobility. states cannot pass bills of de facto laws, trees of foreign nations, legislation claiming money, laws bearing the obligation of contracts, and titles of nobility. so, congress knew how to go out

of its way to make sure our nation's founding document prohibited various types of legislation, that it did not want to see the federal or state governments done. beyond that, there are four clauses in the constitution that arguably protect slave owners interests. the three fifth clause about which i will say more leader. the slave trade clause, which prevented congress from outlying the slave trade until a date in the future, the militia clause which allowed the president to call it militia, to deal insurrections, and fugitive slave clause, which required each state to return slaves who had escaped to the state of their origin. the history behind the texts supports the edited conclusion of its text itself, the declaration of independence said that all men are created equal, but at the time, no state outlawed slavery in the declaration itself, it contained no such provision.

the articles of confederation preceded the constitution also do not outlaws library. now, early congressional adulation is also consistent with this. it distinguished it between, quote, citizens of the united states, unquote, and quote, persons of color, granting rights to the former two citizens that it would not necessarily grant to the latter. and finally, we come in that regard to the supreme court's decision and read, scott versus sanford. the supreme court said that the state laws protecting against the violation of contract rights, that they were given over slaves, could not be abolished by the missouri compromise. the effect was not only declared the missouri compromise unconstitutional, but to ensure that the laws creating this institution in slave holding states could not be undone by congress.

now, it also created what is come to be known as the an regretted rights doc, a doctrine that has current contemporary -- in cases such as roe versus rate, but they aren't the only ones. there's a series of other cases part of the uninvited rates doctrine that are very much in favor of different people in society. for example, the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court, recognizes a rate of parents to non public school their children. the constitution grants to states 11th -- constitutional immunity in the courts of other states, or from federal agencies. and like the commandeering doctrine, the congress from signing responsibilities to state officers. is one of the most well-known principles of criminal justice that everyone's guilt must be

proven beyond reasonable doubt, it's also an example of this an enumerated rate doctrine. but that's how we would argue it today, if we go back to how we would argue earlier, to the 18th century, what is critical in the 18th century is not whether courts can enforce constitutional rights. this is a pre-marbury period, and a free burger court period. what was most important to the republic then, was the ability to elect legislators, because the legislative process was seen as the primary threat to individual rights. guess what? the three fifth clause i mentioned earlier enhanced the population bases that slave holding states would have by allowing them to count three fifths of every slave they held as a person towards the number of representatives that they would have in the house of

representatives. you add that to the equal representation in each state in the senate, what's she wind up with is a political process that is biased towards the southern states, all of which had slavery at this time. so, with that being said, having made the case appropriately, i hope, and the way it would be made today, as well as the way it would have been made in the 18th and early 19th centuries, i now turn everything over to our speakers. our first speaker, will be timothy, and he can explain to you why i am just flat out wrong. timothy, the ball is in your court. >> thank you so much, paul. well, since you and i are both lawyers, i will approach this in a law really argument, in the way the anti slavery constitutional did, and i want to emphasize, this is an aspect of american history that has

unfortunately downplayed to the point that a lot of people, including law students, graduate from school on aware that there even was a tradition of pro-constitution, and tight slavery thought in the years leading up to the civil war. the foremost famous of this being fredericton, close but he wasn't the only one. even john quincy adams, or charles sumner, or chase were to one degree or another were adherence to this pro-constitution anti slavery view, and unfortunately, today's history distorts the record by emphasizing the abolitionist which was the group of abolitionist who thought the constitution wasn't evil pro slavery document, and therefore it should be abolished. these people had very little influence on american political and legal development in the civil war era, and i think it's a shame that the pro constitution anti slavery leaders like douglas are left out in a lot of these

discussions. let me take paul's argument, and show why, and how an anti slavery pro-constitutional predictable sort of answer that. the first one is, whenever we interpret the constitution, we have to start with basic rules of interpretation, and for people like douglas, there were two important things. the first one, was all the text on the paper itself is the law when you are reading the constitution, not a subjective desires of the people who wrote the document. instead, only the words of the constitution are the law and legally binding. the second rule is we should interpret the constitution as pro freedom whenever possible. this comes from an 1805 supreme court case called united states versus freshener, or the supreme court said that we have to interpret the constitution as being pro liberty, unless there's a clear instruction from congress or from the lawmakers saying otherwise, they call it a clear statement

rule, and we use that rule in constitution. okay, with those two roles of interpretation in mind, we look at the constitution. it starts that with these big rewards. we, the people of the united states, who are the people of the united states? constitution contains no definition. to understand who the people of the united states are, we refer back to the declaration of independence, which sets forth through the people of the united states are. people of the united states are the same one people who resolved there being with declaration. the people refer to as one people, not divided up by color, there is no reference to color lands in the constitution. we have no legal reason to believe that black americans are not part of the people in the united states, and the constitution draws no such line. if that is the case, then why should we think the

constitution is intended for white americans? we have no reason to believe that. in fact, the word slave and slavery does not appear anywhere in the constitution of 1787, it's never mentioned, and that's pretty remarkable. i thought if the constitution is supposed to protect slavery, you think it would mention that, right? but douglas says is, reading the constitution, and seeing pro slavery, is like claiming to own property, according to a deed, and when you look at the deed, it doesn't have any reference to the property on the piece of paper. that would be a pretty weird kind of argument to make. in other words, the burden of proof is now on the pro slavery side to prove the constitution is pro slavery, and they really can't do it. there's no federal them -- slavery. there's no limit on thomas banning or limiting it, and the provision regarding the western territories says the congress has to legislate however it wants, with regards to western territories, which was the real

issue that started and sparked the civil war. what about the four provisions paul mentioned, that referred to slavery in a bleak way or another? they don't refuse the word slavery, but there's the three this clause, the fugitive slave cause, and there is the rule about importation and exploitation of slaves. douglas his answer to that was this, the three fifth clause doesn't protect slavery, it recognizes slavery did exist at the time, it doesn't guarantee it. it rewards states at abolished slavery by giving the more representation in congress. the fugitive slaves clause does not refer to slaves. it's as persons from home labour is due, but labour is not to do from slaves. it's too because of injustice, not given due process of law. labour can't be do from that. labour is due from indentured servants. it's true, runaway appearances and indentured servants was a legal problem at the time, and about the importation claw, it did allow congress to ban

slavery in 1808, which it probably did in 1808, so these provisions, all though they referred to slavery, do not protect slavery. this is an important point. anti slavery constitutional thinkers did not say the constitution bans slavery. obviously, it did not. they said three things. they said, first, it provides no guarantee of slavery at the federal level. second, it allows congress if it chose to do so to limit or even eliminate slavery. and third, it allowed its provisions, other provisions, in the long run, inconsistent to slavery. that's things like due process clause. black americans are persons and the constitution says they can't be deprived of liberty without due process of law. that's always the inconsistency with slavery. what about the bill retainer clause? slavery is a kind of bill retainer, and yet the constitution prohibits that. the constitution prohibits the leisure of persons without

legitimate awful authority. cybertheft consistent with that. the most important was the privileges and immunities clause, which said that people who are americans did not need to be deprived of the rights when they travel to state to state, and the problem with this was that my people could be citizens in some states, such as massachusetts, and then travel to a place like south carolina, and be deprived of their liberty, in violation of the federal guarantee, so those are the three principles of anti slavery constitutions, that the constitution does not guarantee slavery, but it allows the federal government to limit or abolish it, and there are other provisions of the constitution that, in a long term, will improve inconsistent with slavery. i finish with one reference, which paul said, that this was a pre-marbury world, so the question wasn't whether it and force individual rights. that's really not true. common law and forced and protect individual rights all the time, under the british constitution is, the british

courts protect individual rights without any written beloved rights at all. so, the idea that courts could protect individual rights was a well respected and well recognized principle of the time, and that's why a lot of anti slavery constitutional thinkers went to court to make their argument. >> timothy, thank you very much. having heard from the lawyer on our panel, we will move to the historians. first person who will speak, is the professor. you are at bat. >> thank you, paul. i want to look at the question of the pro-slavery constitution. from the point of view of the slave holders, which is not often a point of view considered in many of these discussions. and there, they discovered they too did not believe that a pro slavery constitution. it was one of the primary arguments that slave holders used in the secession winter of

1860, to justify the secession of the slave states, that their northern free state brethren had reneged on the guarantees of the constitution, which is it otherwise protect the slave states and the ownership of slaves. louisiana is june up he benjamin and his departing speech in the senate insisted that under a just and fair interpretation of the federal constitution, it was impossible to deny that our slaves, which directly and indirectly involved a value of more than 4000 million dollars, our property, and entitled to protection and territories owned by the common government. still, even though the constitution gets you off at every staff, and this quick attempt, the north was persistent in its threat to slavery and secession was the only way. with the sense the constitution was a rampart that sheltered slave owning had a long history,

stretching back at least as far as the ratification process in 1788. charles coats were pink me, assured his fellow south carolinians that the new constitution which he helped write in philadelphia provided a security that the general government can never emancipate slaves, because no such authority is granted. on the contrary, pinckney explained, we have secured -- for 20 years, nor is a declared the importation shall then be stopped, it may be continued, we have obtained a right to recover our slaves and whatever part of america they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. in short, considering all circumstances, we had made the best terms for the security of this species of property. 19th century abolitionists, on

their port, took pinckney at his word. fredericton, as angela mentioned, and professor timothy sandefur mentioned, argued in 1849 that from the three fifths clause to the insurrection clause, the constitution, not only consisted to bowl marks around slavery, but all the bloody enormous to prevent the slave from escaping, but planned it's uncounted feet and tremendous weight on the beating hearts of american bond men to prevent them from rising to gain their freedom. and in -- argued forcibly that douglas and pinckney pinckney we are right, slavery would be protected by several interlocking provisions of the constitution rights. so, but in growing their government, the framers and their constituents created fundamentalists that sustained

human rights. still, there was no absolute agreement on considering the constitution, as a pro slavery document. as michael colin has shown, the three fifth clause gave savory less heft in national affairs and it might have seemed, since northern electors in the electoral college still enjoyed a 53 to 47% edge as early as 1796. percentages which swung against the south by 1816 -- superiority and anti-slavery northerners from salmon chase, to abraham lincoln argued the constitution gave no national sanction to slavery, even frederick douglass and that comment from 1852, swung over to the view that interpreted as it ought to, be interpreted the

constitution is a glorious liberty document, three words he put in caps. what has been almost entirely missed in the debate, over the constitution of slavery. is the degree to which, the southern slave owners of cells, when they are only talking to themselves, turn out to agree with lincoln, and chase and douglas. and admit that the constitution is a bruised read for slavery to lean upon. ironically the slave owners doubts, begin with charles pinckney. his attempt to convince the ratification, that the slavery was sheltered by the constitution, was done in the face of anti federalist slaveowners,. your delegates had to contend with the religious and prejudices of the middle and

states. and they should realize the deal that was done in philadelphia, was the best that could be done. we would've made better if we could. slave owners constitutional peace of mind, did not improve with time. in the midst of the agitation, over the compromise of 1850, jay a see, the initial that could've met john a cleveland, a slaveowners took to the quarterly review, to say that southerners made a great mistake if they imagine that the clause of the institution that allows representation for the slay population would withstand six months at jason in the northern states. the constitution was a parchment idle, and people could not be deceived to the conclusion that the constitution is the basis of a union of equal states. it was in fact, article of a trading partnership.

a partnership, that could not be relied upon. a year later, the view is even more pessimistic. no legal assurances, of future security are to be found in the constitution for slavery. and the review, was pessimistic. running for the votes in 1855 the louisiana planner johnny perkins, said that the constitution lacked the strength into bending into an anti slavery -- . the calm pens and condense commentary, prepared for schools and businessmen, all gloss over, and misrepresented in the matter of calculating the deceived of the rights of the slave owner under the constitution. well they magnified, by every possible construction the degree of power given to the federal government over the subject. when slave owners, were candid they can explain why clearly,

where the constitution gave them the confidence, for genius arch secessionist, admitted that the forms was a letter of the constitution and it may be used to destroy slavery. in fact claimed roughen, without the need for infringing the letter of the constitution, the southern states and their institutions and property and all of that is dear to them, will be at the mercy of their fanatical and determined enemies. slavery thus maybe abolished directly or indirectly, gradually or immediately. and the most obvious concession of the opposition is weakness on slavery, that was hidden in plain sight. in chief justice roger tani's, opinion in dred scott versus sanders. it was because of the constitution that they had resisted, any suggestion that there could be property and

then that tony had to rush in, in an act of broad judicial reinterpretation. to deny any recognition, to process or privileged or immunity's for african americans, freed or otherwise. the ultimate proof of the slave owners, real lack of faith in the constitution, was how moment they lost political control of the constitutional processes, with the election of lincoln. the slaveowners immediately tossed the constitution aside, attempted to secede from the union, and wrote a new constitution. this time they believed would secure to them what the old one had not. it would give them, a very different constitution of the old one, but looking forward as james -- has written. to something closely approximating a british parliamentary system, but that is after all the point. the safe sleep owner

protections, often speak louder than their words. and the actions were their admissions, that the old as constitution was not their tool, much less their friend >> professor thank you very much. we appreciate the opportunity to learn about this from the perspective as you put it, that we often do not hear from. and we now will turn to professor sean blitz. professor. >> thank you so much, and thank you for having me and here i am and i'm happy to be joining you to continue this discussion and you know much has been said and i was going to say as well to these remarks at the very beginning of his talks as the importance of anti slavery slavery constitutionalism. i hope that throughout their,

that we will take some time to think about that and learn more about that. as i would like to take us back to 1787, and take it up to the civil war as. first to clarify something that comes up a lot, that is simply why didn't the framers abolish slavery. there was no chance whatsoever, that the framers were going to abolish slavery in 1787. it was not because they were bad people, or they were because they were southern slave owners, that somehow brought the northerners into submission. there were three references for this, one because they were property. as and the constitution was framed in part, to protect the property. for all the things they do, that poll mentioned earlier on the federal government was established in a way they couldn't mess around with

property laws of the established states. but they were going to do that. secondly, in 1787, eight of the 13 states, still had slavery. slavery still fully an institution that was there. and you're not going to allow the government, or the federal government to get rid of slavery, with so many states having slaveowners. and the chance of ratification was impossible. third and most importantly, is that slavery was anti slavery. anti slavery was a big thing in the world in 1787. before the revolution, the great federalist, makes his point, but before the revolution there was hardly any opposition to slavery of whites in america, other than among some quaker's. it was the revolution itself, which led to the creation of an extraordinary, anti slavery sentiment, which created naturally the very first, noticeable and it was somewhat

you know it was still there, and it was allowed, the anti slavery movement anywhere in the world. so the idea, that the anti slavery, and it did have some great successes before 1787 in the northern states. but the idea that this failure, and this movement was going to be able to abolish flavoring, in the nation, in 1787, this is giving the anti slavery movement for more power than it could've had. now so let's go back to, 1787 knowing that there is not going to be a chance for the constitution to diminish slavery, or the federal putt governments power to abolish it. so let's go back to the anti slavery sentiment. everybody knows, there were lots of slave holders at the federal convention. as and as there were a lot of anti slavery delegates at that donations well. including benjamin franklin.

these delegates knew very well as, and they were going to do their best, to try and make sure that's the slave holders were not going to put anything over on them. or make slavery or enshrine slavery as national institution. the key, and the key issue for them was the atlantic slave trade. the atlantic slave trade, without which most people at the time, believed without which, slavery could no longer exist. and it could lead to the abolishment of slavery. every emancipation proclamation proposal up to that point, had not as had basically noted the atlantic slave trade as the first tap. these delegates came to philadelphia, prepared and try to make sure that the new government as would have something and basically -- to walls it. outside of congress, and the

abolition society, they start organizing about this. franklin is giving a petition, by a fellow abolitionist. to consent to the convention. he decides it's too radical so he put it aside. but they knew what they were going to be up against. indeed the southern delegation actually managed to get through a constitution which would've given the federal government no power whatsoever, over the atlantic slave trade. get the anti slavery delegates, most of them franklin kept quiet, because -- they tore that really draft constitution to shreds. and they managed, to get the federal government's power of authority, to abolish the atlantic slave trade. so it's true, that there was careful bargaining, and the lower southern delegates, that

ellen mentioned, they managed to get an extension on the slavery proposal. but this was the first major blow, against the atlantic slave trade, in the name of a national government. anywhere in the atlantic world. so to this extent, the anti slavery delegates, had succeeded beyond what anything the slave holders would've desired. there were compromises to be sure, there were concessions perhaps more concessions than some of my colleagues, you know might admit to. okay so let me get to the basic point that i want to make, and that had to do with the struggle over the concept that alan mentioned which is

property. at the state level in the north, there are fights about northern emancipation, at the key pro slavery argument was that, they had their vested interest in property. they have properly interested slavery, and no government could take that away from them. well, the anti slavery argument was simple. property management is illegitimate. property rights is bogus argument in this case, because you cannot own property in man. it's against god, and it's a violation of natural laws. so the anti slavery majority comes to the convention, absolutely determined to keep the idea of property man out of national law. and they succeeded in doing so. you look through the notes that madison took of the debates, and you see clearly that while the constitution would tolerate slavery where it already

existed, it would not recognize the institution in national law, that's why all of those crazy persons held to labor service, or persons not -- the fact that slavery is not in the constitution is not as some argue, a matter of the hush framers trying to hide the fact about this. this was a decision that was taken not out of cowardice but out of conviction. it did not guarantee by any means that slavery would be ended anytime soon and also as i think earlier on, they left the decision up to the future. the politics would decide that, and for a long time the slave owners and their northern allies had enough power to make sure that slavery wouldn't be interfered with. that began to change. that changed during the

missouri crisis in 1820 and after that it became clear, that the framers had left the national government enormous powers. not to abolish slavery directly, but to hamper it hinder it. to put it as a power ham lincoln would remark, the in course of ultimate extinction. once the anti slavery side, the north had control of congress, that is what they went about doing. and alan remarked, it was that pressure, the election of abraham lincoln in 1860, that led the slave holders to secede. the writing was on the wall. but the republican party would have only resisted, the anti slavery clause, could've had have attained national power, because what the framers did in 1787. but keeping the property of man out of the constitution. that is the anti slavery document, the framers not sitting around going well you know, lincoln is going to be

born and everything so to work out, no it could've worked out very very differently. but it worked out the way that it did, in no small measure because largely because, what the framers did in 1787. and to that extent, the anti slavery elements in the constitution, which the constitutionalist developed over the next 30 40 50 or 70 years. was crucial to understanding the constitution. >> professor thank you very much. we will now move on, to professor lucas morale. lucas it is your chance. >> thank you, the great conundrum of 20th century americans looking back to the founding, it squaring their statements about human rights and condemning slavery, we'll continue the practice of slavery. many see this have a rank

hypocrisy, and they find themselves agreeing with chief justice tani, who concluded that the founding generation could not have been all, when they said all men are created equal. because it did not immediately free all american slaves. therefore in the words of douglas, this government of ours was founded or unwisely founded upon a white basis. it was made by white ban may it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men. and managed by white men. how could lincoln, not draw the same conclusion? when lincoln look back to the founders for guidance, on how to deal with a growing crisis over slavery, it wasn't the only one who appealed for the clause. stephen douglas was the leading democrat in the 18 fifties, he claimed that he knew better than lincoln, what our revolutionary fathers thought about the question of slavery. douglas cited cited the founders by name, washington, jefferson, hamilton, and the

great men of that day, made this government and to free states and slave states. and left each state perfectly free to do as it would on the subject of slavery. why can it not exist on the same principles in which our fathers made it. good douglas claimed, his policy align more closely with the founders wills. but the new republic. in lincoln's mind the future of freedom, depended on whose interpretation of the founders, was correct. lincoln did not believe that the constitution was designed to protect slavery per se. and certainly did not agree with the 1857 opinion, of chief justice roger tani. he did not think that was correct, saying that the right of property in a slave, is expressly affirmed in the constitution. lincoln argued in the 18 58th debate with douglas, quote property in a slave is not

distinctly, and confirmed in the constitution. and judge douglas thinks it is. lincoln did not believe the founders were hypocrites, generally speaking. as he put it, we had slavery among us. we could not get our constitution. unless, we permitted them to remain in slavery. we could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more. it does not destroy the principle, that is the charger charter of our liberties. he thought the founders cannot free themselves, or free their slaves at the same time. as it was recently put, the american founder could not be perfect, from the start. it had to progress towards a goal. put simply the founding generation, of americans did not believe that people freed themselves, and freed their slaves without hazarding the success of both their independence and a new way of

governing themselves. however once they had to secure their independence what did they do collectively with regard to the state institution of slavery? did their federal constitution indicate a desire to strengthen slavery's hold on the american people? or did the framers attempt to induce the dependence upon a peculiar institution. lincoln answered by observing that the u.s. constitution, unlike the articles of the confederation, empowered congress, to ban the importation of slaves in 18 oh wait. a constitutional provision was necessary, to prevent the people through congress lincoln noted, from putting a stop to the traffic immediately, as to close it. if slavery had been a good thing, with the fathers of the republic taking a step, calculated to diminishing the influences among themselves, and snatched this from their

posterity. if the federal government did not possess the authority to abolish slavery twigs it existed in the states, then the founders attempted to begin the abolition, by preventing its continue to supply. it was believed at the time, that cutting off the supply would produce its eventual demise, and in addition to the arguments of confederation and the constitution of 1787, the congress passed an ordinance banning slavery from the northwest territory. the only territory owned by the united states at that time. taken together, these were early attempts at the national level, to prevent as both the supply and expansion of slavery on american soil. the expectation was that slavery would eventually weather on, and the nation would peacefully outlive the utility of slavery. jefferson, madison and others feared a race war if emancipation occurred

immediately and on -- . of course these actions and-esque backed asians occurred prior to the invention of the cotton gin in 19 as sorry in 1873. having cotton as an export, and what became the productivity of slave labor in harvesting that crash cash crop. best to speak of, the founders when it came to expectations regarding slavery over the long haul, is to speak in general terms and not to appear at a ferments held by every political player in this drama. this is the eventual compromises over slavery, in the constitution. but madison expected that these would lead to the demise of

slavery overtime. in his house divided speech, lincoln predicted either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and as the republic mind how should rest in the belief that is in extinction, or to push it forward, and it shall become the lifelong hold in all the states. all this well is new, north as well as south. those were the stakes in 1858. and lincoln tried to show white northerners, that to prevent the spread of slavery, he was interpreting the constitution as empowering congress to ban slavery in the territories. this was contrary to tani's ruling in dred scott, but lincoln believed the constitution belong to the american people, and if they disagreed with the supreme court, they could work politically to get the court to reconsider its ruling. in fact, as president lincoln

with signed it into law, and then again slavery in the district of columbia, and two months later a ban against slavery in all of the territories. even with the dred scott ruling still on the books. the 13th amendment, made the constitutional conflict moot, but lincoln believed and anti-slavery belief of the constitution was worth the political challenge.

let me introduce our wonderful guest tonight, lindsay chervinsky is the white house historian. at the white house historical association. she is the author of the new book, the cabinet. george