i will explain that later, but this was dug up in upstate new york, installed in a museum in philadelphia, and this is the creature that literally helped bring jefferson, humboldt, and american art and culture all together. >> learn more about alexander von humboldt sunday at six a copy of eastern, 3:00 p.m. pacific, here on american history tv. thatel of scholars argues the u.s. constitution was an antislavery document rather than a for slavery one as others have claimed. the panel swings have various political groups interpreted the constitution during antebellum fights during slavery. the heritage tradition hosted this event. they provided the video. >> good morning. my name is angela, and i am the vice president of the former institute here at the heritage foundation. on behalf of our president and

andolleague john malcolm director for legal and judicial study, welcome to the heritage foundation preserve the constitution series. today's event is called slavery and the constitution. the question of the hour is whether the constitution is proslavery or anti-slavery. that great shown us leaders and reasonable men and women have changed their viewpoints on this question. frederick douglass, the foremost 1840'sbolitionist in the a radically proslavery document. by the 1850's, douglass changed his mind, concluding the constitution when construed in light of well-established wound interpretation is a

glorious document. many are asking, what convinced douglass to change his viewpoint? some declare it was what the to servead hoped was a legacy of freedom. to be constitution were an adopter, a slaveholding instrument, why would neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slaves be anywhere found in it? that is not the focus of those who challenge the integrity of the constitution. some who challenge the integrity of the constitution say it is weakened by the existence of slavery in the united states at the time the constitution was adopted. slaveholders took part in the framing of the constitution and they say slaveholders in their

hearts intended to secure certain advantages in that instrument for slavery. unum,ricans, e pluribus how do we move forward and bolster present-day opportunity to live as free men? today, we have invited you here to participate in a thoughtful discussion with leading historians and leading scholars about one of the most divisive issues being debated in our nation today. andallenge you to step back view the opportunity to debate the constitution as a proslavery or antislavery document as a pathway to reduce racial tension and create a 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 freest nation the world has ever known. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome my colleague paul larkin, who will no moderate the panel. he is a 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 27 cases before the u.s. supreme court. he was also an attorney in the committal division organized crime and racketeering section. paul received his law degree from stanford law school, where member of the stanford law review. he clerked for a member of the u.s. court of appeals and received his masters in public

policy from george washington university. he also holds a bachelors of arts degree in philosophy from washington university in virginia, where of course he graduated summa kolodny with honors in philosophy. ladies and settlement, my colleague, paul larkin. you for that thank wonderful introduction, and thank you to our audience. you have numerous demands on your time and numerous opportunities how you all 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, legal and history who will address slavery and the constitution permitted but this is a contemporary issue. from the day the new york times magazine published the 1619

project a year ago, the opinions expressed in network touched nerves in american historical and political scholarship as well as in american life. projectis of the 1619 was the true beginning of american history was not 1776, when america declared its independence from england, but was in 1619 when the first african slaves arrived in america at jamestown. the project also claimed that whatever enduring benefits the nation has seen and granted to the world are attributable to the nation's slaveowning past. was, the 1619 project correct to condemn slavery, particularly on one of its anniversaries. slavery is a despicable institution and no one is sobbing the 13th amendment and did it after the civil war, but the 6019 project is not a work of historical scholarship.

numerous historians have objected to the project on the ground that it contains a erroneousn large number of americans have objected to it on the ground that it was leftist political. 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 slaveholders? or did the constitution for bid slavery? or did the constitution avoid taking either of those two positions and left the matter entirely to the political process? our first speaker today will be timothy but he is vice president for litigation at the institute where he oversees the institute's legal staff and holds the government.

he has litigated in important cases involving individual liberty, private property, and constitutional law. he 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 allan. he is a scholar at the heritage foundation, a senior research scholar in the council of humanities at princeton university, and director of the james madison program's initiative in politics and statements to. the professor is an acclaimed scholar of american history whose writings have been recognized having made important contributions to scholarly and public contribution from 19th century america.

a winner of the 2018 gravity prize, here it is phd in history from the university of pennsylvania. the 1886 professor of history at princeton university, where he he also holds an 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 phd 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, the 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." batting cleanup will be professor lucas, the 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 for 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 devil's advocate. i will argue that the constitution protected the rate right of slaveholding states to

create that peculiar and evil institution through law. each of our speakers will then be able to say why 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. because 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 with 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 4 clauses in the constitution that arguably protect slave owners' interests. the 3/5 clause about which i will say more leader. the slave trade clause, which prevented congress from outlying outlawing the slave trade until a date in the future, the militia clause which allowed the president to call out militia to deal insurrections, and fugitive slave clause, which required each state to return slaves who had escaped to the state of their origin. now the history behind the texts , supports the evident

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 and the declaration itself, it contained no such provision. the articles of confederation preceded the constitution also did not outlaw slavery. 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 in dred 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 to not only declare 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 underwritten 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 unenumerated 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 right 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 a 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, is 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 certainly 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 3/5 clause i mentioned earlier enhanced the population

basis 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 each state in the senate, and what you 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, in 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 wrong. timothy, the ball is in your court.

timothy: thank you so much, paul. well, since you and i are both lawyers, i will approach this in l argument, in the way the anti slavery constitutional did, and i want to emphasize, this is an aspect of american history that has been unfortunately downplayed to the point that a lot of people, including law students, graduate from school unaware that there even was a tradition of pro-constitution, anti-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 was an 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 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 person like douglass would have answered that. the first one is, whenever we interpret the constitution, we have to start with basic rules of interpretation, and for people like douglass, 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 the 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 seeker where 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. lawyers call it a clear statement rule, and we use that rule today. ok. with those two roles of interpretation in mind, we look at the constitution. it starts that with these big words. 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 who the people of the united states are. people of the united states are the same one people who resolved their being with declaration. the people refer to as one people, not divided up by color, there is no reference to color lines in the

declaration of independence or 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 only intended for white americans? we have no reason to believe that. in fact, the word slave and the word 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 at least mention that, right? but douglass says 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 congress banning or limiting it, and the provision regarding the western territories says the congress has power 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 4 provisions paul mentioned that referred to slavery in a bleak way or another? they don't refuse the word slavery, but there's the clause, the fugitive slave cause, and there is the rule about importation and exploitation of slaves. douglass's answer to that was this. the 3/5 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 says persons from home labour is due, but labour is not to do from slaves. it's 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 serious legal problem in the the importation clause allowed congress to ban slavery in 1808, which it promptly did in 1808, so these provisions, all though they referred to slavery, do not protect slavery. this is an important point. the 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 with 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 thetitution prohibits bill retainer. 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 state to state, and the problem with this was that many 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 3 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 the long term will , improve inconsistent with slavery. i would like to finish with one reference, which paul said, that this was a pre-marbury world, so

the question wasn't whether it courts could enforce individual rights. that's really not true. common law courts forced and protect individual rights all the type of the british constitution. 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. paul: timothy. thank you very much. 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. >> 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 to justify the secession of the slave states. the they reneged on constitution. it was impossible to deny that the slaves had value. that they were property. were protected and territories owned by the common government. even though the constitution has you off at every step, the north

was persistent. this was a rampart that sheltered slaveowning's. as far asck ratification. the new constitution provided a security that the general government can never emancipate slaves. because no such authority is granted. explained that they have a unlimited importation for 20 years.

considering all the circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security of the species. they took him at his word. the constitution not only consented to form the system of slavery, to prevent the slave from escaping. it prevented them from rising to gain their freedom. some modern historians of slavery have argued that they were right.

in growing their government, the framers and their constituents created fundamental laws. there was no absolute agreement on securing the constitution is a proslavery document. gave slavery less have to in national affairs than it might have seemed. by 1860, northern electors had a superiority. arguedvery northerners

that the constitution gave no national sanction to slavery. swungrederick douglass over to the view that he aserpreted the constitution a glorious liberty document.

they would realize that the deal made in philadelphia was the best in their power to make. they would have made a better if they could. did not improve their peace of mind. a charleston slaveowner took to the pages of southern quarterly review to warn that southerners made a grave mistake if they imagine that the clause of the constitution that allows representation for the slave population could withstand six-month agitation in the northern states.

southern people should not be deceived that a conclusion that the constitution is a union of equal states. it was the article of a trading partnership. it was just as pessimistic. said that the constitution lacked the strength to resist bending into an antislavery shape. they all glossed over that

constitution. when slave owners were candid, they set the constitution gave them no confidence. that it could be used to destroy slavery. without the need of infringing a letter of a single article the constitution, the southern would be at the mercy of their enemies. the most obvious concession was hidden in plain sight.

in the dred scott case. in a racked -- active judicial interpretation, it denied any recognition of due process. or privileges and immunities. the ultimate proof of the slave of faith in the constitution was how, the minute , thelost political control slave owners immediately tossed the constitution aside, tended to secede from the union, and wrote a new constitution. secure toved it would them what the old one had not. it would give them a very

different constitution. looking forward to something more closely approximating a british parliament ray system. their actions were an admission that it was their tool. thank you very much. we appreciate the opportunity. this is a perspective we often don't hear from. >> thank you so much. thank you for having me. i am really happy to be joining this particular discussion. much has been said that i was

going to say. i hope you all out there will take some time to think about that. to take us back to 1787. why didn't the framers abolished slavery? whatsoevero chance that they were going to abolish slavery in 1787. and it is not because they were bad people. there were three very good reasons. one has to do with property.

for all the things they did about coinage and contracts, the federal government was not going to mess around with property laws. eight of the 13 states still had slavery. the chances of ratification would have been impossible. antislavery was a very new thing in the world in 1787. before the revolution, john jay makes the point that there was hardly any opposition to slavery.

the revolution itself led to an antislavery sentiment. it was somewhat ramshackle. antislavery was isng to abolish slavery giving the movement far more power than it could've possibly had. let's go back to 1787. knowing there is not going to be a chance for the constitution to eliminate slavery. go back to the antislavery sentiment.

lotsone knows there were of slaveholders at the federal convention. there were also antislavery delegates. including the presidents of the penciling -- pennsylvania abolition society, bensman franklin. their bestoing to do to try to make sure the slaveholders were not going to put anything over on them. -- and try slavery as a national institution. the key issue is the atlantic slave trade. without which most people at the time believed slavery would no longer exist. these delegates came to

philadelphia prepared to try to not just regulate the atlantic slave trade but to abolish it. they start organizing about this. they knew what they would be up against. franklin knew what he was going to be saying if he ever spoke up. they tore that early draft contribution to shreds.

they managed to get the federal government power and authority to abolish the slave trade. bargaining, careful managedhern delegates to get an extension. blowwas the first major against the atlantic slave trade in the name of a national government. the antislavery delegates actually succeeded beyond what the slaveholders would've desired. there were compromises, to be sure. there were more concessions than some of my colleagues might want to admit to. little clause was a trickier.

its effect has been vastly overestimated. in the north, the key proslavery have theirs they vested interest in property. no one to get rid of that. no government to take that away. the antislavery argument was simple. property as a man was illegitimate. it is a sin against god. the majority was determined to

keep this out of national law. they exceeded in doing so. clearly that it would tolerate slavery. the fact that slavery is not in the constitution is not a matter of the framers trying to shamefully hide the fact that they have hardwired it. this was a decision that was made not out of cowardice but out of conviction. not guarantee that slavery would be ended anytime soon. they really left it up to the

future. for a long time, the slave owners and their northern allies have enough power in congress to ensure that slavery would not be interfered with. to change during missouri crisis. after that, it became clear that the national government had normans powers. slavery the growth of and to put it into the course of ultimate extinction. that is precisely what they went about doing. that ledat pressure the slaveholders to secede. the writing was on the wall. the republican can only have what theecause of

framers did in 1787. not make the constitution and antislavery document. it could've worked out very differently. didit worked out the way it largely because of what the framers did. it was absolutely crucial. thank you very much. we will now move on to our cleanup header. -- hitter. >> thank you.

the great conundrum of 20th century americans looking back and saying itg condemn slavery while it continues to practice slavery. many people see this as rank hypocrisy. the conclusion that the founding generation could not have meant all when they said all men are created equal. because it did not immediately free all american slaves. this government was founded upon the white basis. how could lincoln not draw the same conclusion? when he looked back to the founders for guidance on how to deal with the growing crisis, he was the only one.

stephen douglas claimed that he knew better than lincoln what our revolutionary fathers he cited them by name. he said they made the government divided into three states -- free states and slave states. i left state perfectly free to do what it wanted on the subject of slavery. he claimed his policy aligned more closely with the founders hope for the new republic. in lincoln's mind, the future of freedom and the eventual demise of slavery depended on whose interpretation of the founders was correct. lincoln did not believe that the constitution was designed to protect slavery. he did not think the dred scott

decision was correct. lincoln said that the right is not affirmed in the constitution. lincoln did not believe the founders were hypocrites, generally speaking. have slavery among asked. he said it did not destroy the principle that was the charter of liberty. he thought the founders could not free themselves and free their slaves at the same time. it could not be perfect from the start.

it had to progress toward its goal. americans did not believe they could free themselves and the slaves without hazarding the success of their new way of governance. secured their independence, what did they do collectively? did the federal constitution indicate a desire to strengthen slavery's hold on the american people? lincoln answered by observing constitution empowered congress to ban the importation of slaves. he said it put a stop to the

traffic immediately at the close of the war. with the fathers of the republic have taken a step to weaken this power? if the federal government did not have the authority to then they would prevent its continued supply. it was believed at the time that cutting off the supply would produce its eventual demise. articles of confederation and the constitution of 1787, the congress passed an ordinance banning slavery from the northwest territories. the only territory owned by the united states at that time. these were early attempts at the national level to prevent the of slaveryexpansion

on american soil. they thought it would wither on the vine. and the nation would peacefully outlive the utility of slavery. jefferson, madison, and others feared a race war if emancipation occurred immediately. these action and expectations all happened prior to the invention of the cotton gin. the enormous profitability of plantation grown cotton. south carolina and georgia were always resistant to national control over slavery in their state. power ascise outside the minority of american states. founders is to speak in general terms.

this is what produced some of the debates at the convention and the eventual compromises over slavery in the constitution. madison expected that these would lead to the demise of slavery over time. in his house divided speech, lincoln predicted the opponents of slavery would arrest the further spread of it. and the public mind shall rest on the belief that it is on a course for ultimate extinction. those were the stakes in 1858. lincoln tried to show white northerners that the key to preventing the spread of slavery was interpreting the constitution and empowering congress to ban slavery in the territories. this was contrary to the ruling

in dred scott. lincoln believe the constitution belong to the american people. if they disagreed with the supreme court, they could work politically to get the court to reconsider its ruling. as president, lincoln would sign into law a van against slavery and the district of columbia. and two months later, a ban on slavery in all the territories. even with the dred scott ruling still on the books. the 13th amendment made the constitutional conflict mood. lincoln and the republicans believed in an antislavery interpretation of the constitution. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] >> keep up with us during the week on facebook, twitter, and youtube. learn about what happened this day in history and see preview clips of upcoming programs. while many holiday traditions

will be different this year because of the pandemic, we can still remember festivities from years past. ♪ >> seasons greetings from all of

us at american history tv. >> each week, american history tv's reel america brings you up archival films that provide context for public affairs issues. to a close, we look back to an extraordinary year. turn the clock back with more films that profile presidents who took office during extraordinary times or under unusual circumstances. first, theodore roosevelt. theing the centennial of 26th president's birth. a man who came to office unexpectedly in 19 01 after william mckinley was assassinated. which documents the ambitious plans

of president roosevelt concerned from his inauguration to the state-of-the-union address. the film shown daily at the ford museum and library. details the challenges facing a president picking up power in the wake of the watergate scandal, and finally in 70 minutes or so, united states elects president truman. a short u.s. information service film for foreign audiences that tells truman's life story including the 1948 election which the incumbent beat the odds and defeated republican thomas dewey.