newsom family. newsom's children awake. their father is missing, and a search begins for newsom. it takes two major phases. children's newsom's searched the farm itself. perhaps he had an accident. neighbors join, and the questioning begins. the informal, but important interrogation of people on the farm, one of whom is newsom's grandson, who relates he helped distribute the ashes of her fire on the path leading to the stable on the farm, and george, the enslaved man owned by newsom. george relates -- we will come back to his testimony -- relates that perhaps they want to search in the vicinity of celia's cabin. celia herself, as we know, progressively tells a story. initially she denies any understanding of newsom's whereabouts, what might have happened to him. piecemealegins to tell a story. the consequences of her act are grave, as we know. she begins to tell a story, first about newsom having put his head through the window and having struck him, his disappearing into the night, but eventually it seems, particularly under duress, under the threat that in fact she may be separated from her children, celi

newsome. she reveals to them out of the earshot of the newsome children she reveals she in fact, struck newsomeead and disposed of his body in the fireplace. we can follow the story then as it makes its way through now a legal frame. there is an inquest. these local neighbors who have been at the fore of the investigation. newsome's children and celia herself will all give testimony before a local grand jury leading to the indictment, the formal charging of celia with the murder. there will be a trial. many parties will come forward, re-tell the stories with one exception. doesn't testify at the trial. do you remember? who does not testify. celia herself doesn't testify. pursuant to missouri law as is typical, no defendant is given the opportunity to testify at trial. a defendant in 19th century legal culture is deemed to be too self-interested to give testimony. celia herself doesn't testify. many of the parties we have become familiar with do testify. they retell in a sense celia's story. celia's version of events. one of the things that becomes clear at trial while there are facts in dispute

newsom family. newsom's children awake, their father is missing and a search begins for newsom. wo major phases initially newsom's children search the farm itself, has he wandered off, has he had an accident, but there's no sign of him. neighbors join the search and questioning begins, the interrogation, this informal but very important interrogation of people on the farm one of whom is newsom's grandson who relates that he has helped celia distribute the ashes from her fire along the path leading to the stable on the newsom farm. there is george, the enslaved man, owned by newsom. george relates -- we'll come back to his testimony, but relates that perhaps they want to search in the vicinity of celia's cabin. celia herself has we know progressively tells a story. initially she denies any understanding of what newsom's whereabouts, what might have happened to him. she then begins to piecemeal tell a story and we understand in a sense why that might have been. the consequences for her act are grave, as we know. and she begins to tell a story first about having newsom having put hi

newsom newsom, is not guilty of first degree murder. why? because by missouri law, an individual who understands him or herself to be the imminent victim of a felony to be in the imminent fear of body harm has the right to respond to that in self-defense self-defense. the argument is that celia while she killed newsom, did so defending herself against newsom's commission of a felony, the felony of rape or defilement in missouri. here the statute that is key to determining whether or not celia was in fact in imminent fear of being raped. let's read it together. " "every person who shall take any woman flauflunlawfully and by force, menace or duress compel her to marry him or to marry any other person, or to be defiled, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprizsonment in the pen penitentiary for not less than five years." "any woman unlawfully against her will." how do you read this as applies to celia? >> that makes assumption that the woman in question has will in fact. i know that as a slave that they are -- no such will exists and i think that's why the court did not recognize herself defense claim. >> good. so it is any woman against her will. i think one of the key questions here that the court must implicitly resolve for itself before it instructs the jury is is celia a woman with w

you will recall, have attempted to introduce offend and to argue that celia, while she killed newsom newsom not guilty of first degree murder. why? because by missouri law, an individual who understands him or herself to be the imminent victim of a felony to be in the imminent fear of body harm has the right to respond to that

newsom estate inventories. we went to the site of the newsom farm. as much as i think i wanted to end by telling you the historians are the bastion of evidence and social science, that we won't get caught up in romance or memory or myth were fiction when it comes to celia, i will leave you to contemplate team onne which is our what is now federal land in fulton, the site where the the site ofstood, this dramatic moment in the life of celia. all that is left are some foundation stones, old trees, and open fields. historians wanting in some sense to walk that walk, the 60 paces from the house to the cabin, to in some sense try to inhabit celia's world, to try and be closer in some sense to her and her experience. i think we would all say there was not much evidence here. powerfultraordinary, to walk for an afternoon the walk celia had walked those many years ago. we will stop here. when i see you next time, we will continue with this theme of history, memory, and myth by looking at the case of sojourner truth. you will read the extraordinary biography

newsom newsom, is not guilty of first degree murder. why? because by missouri law, an individual who understands him or herself to be the imminent victim of a felony to be in the imminent fear of body harm has the right to respond to that in self-defense self-defense. the argument is that celia while she killed newsom, did so defending herself against newsom's commission of a felony, the felony of rape or defilement in missouri. here the statute that is key to determining whether or not celia was in fact in imminent fear of being raped. let's read it together. " "every person who shall take any woman flauflunlawfully and by force, menace or duress compel her to marry him or to marry any other person, or to be defiled, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprizsonment in the pen penitentiary for not less than five years." "any woman unlawfully against her will." how do you read this as applies to celia? >> that makes assumption that the woman in question has will in fact. i know that as a slave that they are -- no such will exists and i think that's why the court did not recognize herself defense claim. >> good. so it is any woman against her will. i think one of the key questions here that the court must implicitly resolve for itself before it instructs the jury is is celia a woman with w