# data[].attributes.body
"If you've never read The Constitution, you're like most of us. What does it even say? Most of Americans aren't law scholars, which is why we sat down with a Dean of USC's Gould School of Law, Professor Franita Tolson, to have her give us the crib sheet on the most important document in the free world."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you've never read The Constitution, you're like most of us. What does it even say? Most of Americans aren't law scholars, which is why we sat down with a Dean of USC's Gould School of Law, Professor Franita Tolson, to have her give us the crib sheet on the most important document in the free world. What's up with the amendments? What are the articles? What does it mean to be an American? What rights do we have? How did we get them and how do we keep them? We also discuss what it was like having Barack Obama as her law professor, if she reads the Apple Terms & Conditions, the Civil Rights Movement, Hamilton, whether Trump can be impeached, how to get familiar with the best SCOTUS gossip and Shonda Rhimes. By the end of the episode, you'll be able to wink at the Constitution and say "I get you" and you also might be engaging in more peaceful protests or applying to law school or hanging Professor Tolson's portrait on your wall.

Listen on Stitcher, iTunes, Spotify, Omny or wherever you get podcasts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nomology (THE CONSTITUTION) with Franita Tolson - alie ward

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you've never read The Constitution, you're like most of us. What does it even say?

# data[].attributes.body
How are you celebrating today or what are you learning? Tag us on instagram at #ConstitutionDayWithIHP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If the problem continues, contact the site owner.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Race and the American Constitution: A Struggle toward National Ideals

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Race and the American Constitution: A Struggle toward National Ideals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Access denied | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

# data[].attributes.headline
TEDTalk: The Constitution: It's personal 

# data[].attributes.subject
TEDTalk: The Constitution: It's personal 

# data[].attributes.body
"At TEDxTampaBay, Tara shared her experience on how the principles within the U.S. Constitution are coming alive in individuals like never before and rapidly transforming the community for the better."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Constitution: It's Personal | Tara Hechlik Newsom | TEDxTampaBay

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Does an Exception Clause in the 13th Amendment Still Permit Slavery?

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Does an Exception Clause in the 13th Amendment Still Permit Slavery?

# data[].attributes.body
The amendment, which officially abolished slavery in the United States in 1865, includes a loophole regarding involuntary servitude.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis/Getty Images

The year the Civil War ended, the U.S. amended the Constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude. But it purposefully left in one big loophole for people convicted of crimes.

The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Scholars, activists and prisoners have linked that exception clause to the rise of a prison system that incarcerates Black people at more than five times the rate of white people, and profits off of their unpaid or underpaid labor.

"What we see after the passage of the 13th Amendment is a couple of different things converging," says Andrea Armstrong, a law professor at Loyola University in New Orleans. "First, the 13th Amendment text allows for involuntary servitude where convicted of a crime." At the same time, "black codes" in the south created "new types of offenses, especially attitudinal offenses-not showing proper respect, those types of things."

After the Civil War, new offenses like "malicious mischief" were vague, and could be a felony or misdemeanor depending on the supposed severity of behavior. These laws sent more Black people to prison than ever before, and by the late 19th century the country experienced its first "prison boom," legal scholar Michelle Alexander writes in her book The New Jim Crow.

"After a brief period of progress during Reconstruction, African Americans found themselves, once again, virtually defenseless," Alexander writes. "The criminal justice system was strategically employed to force African Americans back into a system of extreme repression and control, a tactic that would continue to prove successful for generations to come."

States put prisoners to work through a practice called "convict-leasing," whereby white planters and industrialists "leased" prisoners to work for them. States and private businesses made money doing this, but prisoners didn't. This meant many Black prisoners found themselves living and working on plantations against their will and for no pay decades after the Civil War.

Was this slavery by another name? Armstrong argues that the 13th Amendment makes an exception for "involuntary servitude," not "slavery," and that there are important historical and legal distinctions between the two. However, she says no court has formally dealt with this distinction, and many courts have used to two terms interchangeably. In 1871, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a convicted person was "a slave of the State."

Like chattel slavery before it, convict-leasing was brutal and inhumane. Across the country, "tens of thousands of people, overwhelmingly Black, were leased by the state to plantation owners, privately owned railroad yards, coal mines and road-building chain gangs and made to work under the whip from dusk till dawn-often as punishment for petty crimes such as vagrancy or theft," reports The Washington Post.

Many prisoners died in these conditions. In July 2018, researcher Reginald Moore announced he'd found the remains of 95 Black prisoners who'd died working in Sugar Land, Texas in the early 20th century. Experts estimate their ages ranged from 14 to 70, meaning some would've been born into pre-Civil War slavery, freed, incarcerated and then forced into unpaid labor again. More than 3,500 prisoners died in Texas between 1866 and 1912, the year Texas outlawed convict-leasing because the death toll was so high.

States also benefited and profited off of prison labor by forcing chain gangs to build roads and creating prison farms to grow crops like sugar and snap peas. Today, states and private companies still rely on prisoners performing free or extremely low-paid labor for them. For example, California saves up to $100 million a year, according to state corrections spokesman Bill Sessa, by recruiting incarcerated people as volunteer firefighters.

"[States] would not be able to incarcerate as many people as they do without this, in effect, subsidy of the cost," Armstrong says. "So it masks the true nature or the true cost of incarceration."

Decades of prison and civil rights activism have sought to improve conditions and pay for incarcerated workers. In 1971, inmates at New York's Attica Correctional Facility took control of the prison and issued a list of demands, including the right to join labor unions and earn a minimum wage. More recently, in the summer of 2018, prisoner laborers across the United States went on strike to protest what they called "modern-day slavery."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does an Exception Clause in the 13th Amendment Still Permit Slavery?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The year the Civil War ended, the U.S. amended the Constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude. But it purposefully left in one big loophole for people convicted of crimes. The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

# data[].attributes.body
Timeline, dates, facts and more about the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Constitution Day

After the American Revolution freed the American colonies from British rule, the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure the new government couldn't abuse its power. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, delegates from twelve of the thirteen new states gathered to draft the document that would serve as the basis of all future U.S. law.

The Constitution calls for three branches of government with equal powers, creating a system commonly known as "checks and balances." Each branch has power to mitigate the others. Powers not assigned to one of the three branches are left to the individual states.

Delegates at the Convention had two options for setting up the framework of the new legislative branch. The Virginia Plan, predictably supported by larger states, called for representation based on population. The competing New Jersey Plan called for equal representation for each state. The two-house solution known as the Great Compromise combines aspects of both plans and is still in use today.

The Constitution also outlines the responsibilities and powers of the judicial and executive branches, how the President is elected, and other nitty-gritty details.

The Founding Fathers recognized that society evolves, and that the Constitution would require a mechanism for making changes. However, they wanted to ensure that making changes would require agreement from a large number of states. To alter the Constitution, a proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of states.

In 1940, Congress and the President passed a resolution creating "I Am an American Day," observed on the third Sunday in May. In 1952, the holiday was renamed to "Constitution Day" and moved to September 17, the day in 1787 that the Constitution was signed. More than 50 years later in 2004, Congress once again changed the name of the holiday to Constitution Day and Citizenship Day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When is Constitution Day 2018 and what are some fun Constitution Day activities? Check out the history of the Constitution, plus great ways to get your democracy on.

# data[].attributes.body
"educational videos feature the museum's education staff, distinguished scholars, and even some famous faces who bring America’s democracy and the stories of “We the People” to life"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our free, fun Educational Video Lessons are a hit with students and educators nationwide! Created and produced by the National Constitution Center, our educational videos feature the museum's education staff, distinguished scholars, and even some famous faces who bring America's democracy and the stories of "We the People" to life.

The National Constitution Center and Drexel University's School of Education have received multiple Telly Awards in recognition for their collaborative work on educational videos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our free, fun Educational Video Lessons are a hit with students and educators nationwide! Created and produced by the National Constitution Center, our educational videos feature the museum's education staff, distinguished scholars, and even some famous faces who bring America's democracy and the stories of "We the People" to life.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Henry O. Wagoner, Jr. Celebrates the ratification of the 15th amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Henry O. Wagoner, Jr. Celebrates the ratification of the 15th amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Public Domain Image
In May, 1870, Henry O. Wagoner, Jr., the twenty year old son of one of black Denver's leading civil rights advocates, was given the rare privilege of addressing a local audience gathered to celebrate the ratification of the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Wagoner congratulated the audience and praised those who had fought for the amendment but he also warned of the civic responsibilities that accompany the newly won voting rights. Part of his address is reprinted below.
Mr. President and Fellow Citizens: My own youthful appearance will naturally suggest the improbability of my being a public speaker of either experience or ability, and hence an extended apology would be needless repetition of what is already apparent. But the occasion is one well calculated to move even the most subtle and most timid from silence. I see before me a vast audience of my fellow people, glowing with enthusiasm, and I am inclined to ask what is the cause of this meeting? For what purpose are we assembled here tonight? Is it to give aid and comfort to some runaway slave? Is it to adopt resolutions declaring the existence of rights whose exercise we are unjustly denied? Is it to appoint representatives to be sent to state capitals, there to plead our cause... Is it to give expression to our utter horror and indignation at some violence perpetrated on the person or property of some of our fellow people? No sir. No such objects as these bring us here tonight. No longer must we come together stealthily by night to give relief to fugitive slaves. No more need we send champions of our rights to state capitals or national conventions; for the reason no longer exists. No more do we hear the heart rending cry of poor mortals bleeding under the lash.... Such things....happily for ourselves, happily for our posterity...are doomed to exist only in the memories and records of the past.

We are here tonight for thanksgiving and rejoicing at the ratification of the fifteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, whereby manhood and fealty are made the conditions of suffrage irrespective of color, race or creed...

The consummation which we celebrate is of great practical importance. It adds, instantaneously, nearly a quarter of a million voters.... This act is the completion of one of the greatest reforms ever accomplished by any nation. The revolution has been vast, rapid, grand. The despised chattel of 1860 is the respected voter of today.

To the colored Americans, among the proudest recollections of the past will be the part they took in their own deliverance. They may justly boast that they did not remain passive observers of the great struggle for freedom and national existence. In the dark hours of the nation's gloom, when a cloud of despair rested all over this broad land, when the Union party at last consented, if triumphant, to "break the yoke and let the oppressed go free;" then did the sable sons of America rally at the call of the chief, and spill their life-blood in defense of the flags of their country, which had hitherto been to them an ensign of tyranny, but now the palladium of their rights. The negro soldiers have won for themselves an undying fame for valor and patriotism by their valiant conduct at a Fort Pillow, a Fort Wagner, and a Pittsburg. But while we dwell upon the struggles of the past and the triumphs of today, let us not forget the duties of tomorrow. Long indulged prejudice can not be legislated away, and in the exercise of our new privilege we will be jealously watched. In a government like ours no race or set of men who are deficient in intellectual attainments can hope to retain power or to exercise any considerable influence in shaping public affairs any more than a single individual can expect to rise to a position of honor...who is destitute of these qualities.... It behooves us, then, to look well to our mental cultivation. Be studious and ever ready to receive and impart instruction. See to it that your children are provided with ample schools and competent teachers, and assist them, by all means in your power, in gaining a good education, which will enable them to become good, wise and great; thus you and they will live to a good and noble purpose and honor God....

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
(1870) Henry O. Wagoner, Jr. Celebrates The Ratification Of The 15th Amendment To The United States Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Public Domain Image In May, 1870, Henry O. Wagoner, Jr., the twenty year old son of one of black Denver's leading civil rights advocates, was given the rare privilege of addressing a local audience gathered to celebrate the ratification of the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: Slavery and the Making of America

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: Slavery and the Making of America

# data[].attributes.body
In this lecture, they focus on reversing modern misconceptions about the centrality of slavery in the development of the United States and the stories of individuals who were enslaved and who fought for freedom.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Frederick Douglass, The Constitution of the United States: Is it pro-slavery or anti-slavery?

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Frederick Douglass, The Constitution of the United States: Is it pro-slavery or anti-slavery?

# data[].attributes.body
In a speech before the Scottish Anti-Slavery Society in Glasgow, Scotland on March 26, 1860, Frederick Douglass outlines his views on the American

# data[].attributes.headline
Excerpt: 'An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
Excerpt: 'An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States

# data[].attributes.body
The Zinn Education Project:  Today in the United States, there are more than five hundred federally recognized Indigenous nations comprising nearly three million people, descendants of the fifteen million Native people who once inhabited this land. The centuries-long genocidal program of the US settler-colonial regimen has largely been omitted from history. Acclaimed historian and activist Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz offers a history of the United States told from the perspective of Indigenous peoples and reveals how Native Americans, for centuries, actively resisted expansion of the U.S. empire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today in the United States, there are more than five hundred federally recognized Indigenous nations comprising nearly three million people, descendants of the fifteen million Native people who once inhabited this land. The centuries-long genocidal program of the U.S. settler-colonial regimen has largely been omitted from history. Acclaimed historian and activist Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz offers a history of the United States told from the perspective of Indigenous peoples and reveals how Native Americans, for centuries, actively resisted expansion of the U.S. empire.

In An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, Dunbar-Ortiz adroitly challenges the founding myth of the United States and shows how policy against the Indigenous peoples was colonialist and designed to seize the territories of the original inhabitants, displacing or eliminating them. And as Dunbar-Ortiz reveals, this policy was praised in popular culture, through writers like James Fenimore Cooper and Walt Whitman, and in the highest offices of government and the military. Shockingly, as the genocidal policy reached its zenith under President Andrew Jackson, its ruthlessness was best articulated by U.S. Army general Thomas S. Jesup, who, in 1836, wrote of the Seminoles: "The country can be rid of them only by exterminating them." [Publisher's description.]

Interview with Author

Historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz on Thanksgiving: "It Has Never Been About Honoring Native Americans" on Democracy Now! on Nov. 29, 2016.

Excerpt
The excerpt below "Redskins" (from Chapter Four: Bloody Footprints) is useful for teaching about the #ChangetheMascot campaign regarding the Washington football team and other sports mascots.
Indigenous people continued to resist by burning settlements and killing and capturing settlers. As an incentive to recruit fighters, colonial authorities introduced a program of scalp hunting that became a permanent and long-lasting element of settler warfare against Indigenous nations. During the Pequot War, Connecticut and Massachusetts colonial officials had offered bounties initially for the heads of murdered Indigenous people and later for only their scalps, which were more portable in large numbers. But scalp hunting became routine only in the mid-1670's, following an incident on the northern frontier of the Massachusetts colony. The practice began in earnest in 1697 when settler Hannah Dustin, having murdered ten of her Abenaki captors in a nighttime escape, presented their ten scalps to the Massachusetts General Assembly and was rewarded with bounties for two men, two women, and six children.

Dustin soon became a folk hero among New England settlers. Scalp hunting became a lucrative commercial practice. The settler authorities had hit upon a way to encourage settlers to take off on their own or with a few others to gather scalps, at random, for the reward money. "In the process," John Grenier points out, "they established the large-scale privatization of war within American frontier communities." Although the colonial government in time raised the bounty for adult male scalps, lowered that for adult females, and eliminated that for Indigenous children under ten, the age and gender of victims were not easily distinguished by their scalps nor checked carefully. What is more, the scalp hunter could take the children captive and sell them into slavery. These practices erased any remaining distinction between Indigenous combatants and noncombatants and introduced a market for Indigenous slaves. Bounties for Indigenous scalps were honored even in absence of war. Scalps and Indigenous children became means of exchange, currency, and this development may even have created a black market. Scalp hunting was not only a profitable privatized enterprise but also a means to eradicate or subjugate the Indigenous population of the Anglo-American Atlantic seaboard. The settlers gave a name to the mutilated and bloody corpses they left in the wake of scalp-hunts: redskins.

This way of war, forged in the first century of colonization - destroying Indigenous villages and fields, killing civilians, ranging and scalp hunting-became the basis for the wars against the Indigenous across the continent into the late nineteenth century.

Reviews

A must-read for anyone interested in the truth behind this nation's founding. -Veronica E. Velarde Tiller, Jicarilla Apache author, historian, and publisher of Tiller's Guide to Indian Country

This may well be the most important U.S. history book you will read in your lifetime. . . . Dunbar-Ortiz radically reframes U.S. history, destroying all foundation myths to reveal a brutal settler-colonial structure and ideology designed to cover its bloody tracks. Here, rendered in honest, often poetic words, is the story of those tracks and the people who survived - bloodied but unbowed. Spoiler alert: the colonial era is still here, and so are the Indians. -Robin D. G. Kelley, author of Freedom Dreams

ISBN: 9780807000403 | Beacon Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States - Zinn Education Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Book - Non-fiction. By Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. 2015. 312 pages. Four hundred years of Native American history from a bottom-up perspective.

# data[].attributes.headline
TEDTalks: The fight for civil rights and freedom

# data[].attributes.subject
TEDTalks: The fight for civil rights and freedom

# data[].attributes.body
Lewis discusses the essential importance of voting, shares encouraging words of wisdom for the generation of young people currently organizing in the struggle for racial justice and tells moving stories from his decades of making "good trouble"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The fight for civil rights and freedom | John Lewis and Bryan Stevenson

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment?

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A current public debate started by a retired Supreme Court Justice has people talking about possibly repealing one of the Constitution's original 10 amendments. In reality, the odds of such an act happening are extremely long.

Justice John Paul Stevens' Tuesday op-ed in the New York Times called for a repeal of the Second Amendment, which guarantees "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Stevens didn't offer an alternative to the Second Amendment in his Times piece, but in his 2014 book, the Justice wanted the amendment rewritten to only pertain to state militias.

Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. Including the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, which were ratified in 1789, the Senate historian estimates that approximately 11,699 amendment changes have been proposed in Congress through 2016. Only one amendment, the 18 th Amendment that established Prohibition, was later repealed by the states.

In simple odds, the chance of any constitutional amendment being repealed would be roughly the same as a person living to 80 years old being struck by lightning during their lifetime, according to National Weather Service data. And for the Second Amendment, which was rooted in the English Declaration of Rights a century before the Bill of Rights was ratified, the odds would likely be steeper.

In recent years, three other amendments have been subject of repeal talk: the 17 th Amendment (the direct election of Senators), the 16 th Amendment (the federal income tax), and the 22 nd Amendment (presidential term limits). None of that talk came close to fruition.

The Constitution's Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.

The one instance of an amendment appeal, the 21st Amendment, shows how this unusual process works. The 18 th Amendment ratified in 1919 prohibited "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" nationwide under most circumstances. By the early 1930s, Prohibition had become unpopular and Congress passed the 21 st Amendment, with its repeal provision, in February 1933 just before Franklin Roosevelt became President. The amendment proposed for ratification included language never used before but permitted under Article V: state conventions (and not state legislatures) would be called for ratification votes, out of fear the temperance lobby would influence state lawmakers.

When Utah became the 36 th state to approve the amendment in December 1933, the ratified 21 st Amendment not only repealed the broad prohibition on alcohol, it also added language to the Constitution that states had the ability to define alcohol laws within their borders.

The most-recent amendment added to the Constitution was the 27 th Amendment in 1992, which prevented Congress from changing its own compensation during a term in progress; that amendment had first been proposed in 1789 but wasn't ratified as part of the Bill of Rights. Six amendments have been approved by Congress but never fully ratified by the states, with the District of Columbia Voting Rights amendment that last one that failed to get approval in 1985.
Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A current public debate started by a retired Supreme Court Justice has people talking about possibly repealing one of the Constitution's original 10 amendments. In reality, the odds of such an act happening are extremely long.

# data[].attributes.headline
TEDtalk: What's needed to bring the US voting system into the 21st century

# data[].attributes.subject
TEDtalk: What's needed to bring the US voting system into the 21st century

# data[].attributes.body
The American election system is complicated, to say the least -- but voting is one of the most tangible ways that each of us can shape our communities. How can we make the system more modern, inclusive and secure? Civic engagement champion Tiana Epps-Johnson shares what's needed to bring voting in the US into the 21st century -- and to get every person to the polls.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's needed to bring the US voting system into the 21st century | Tiana Epps-Johnson

# data[].attributes.headline
Website: The Three Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787)

# data[].attributes.subject
Website: The Three Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787)

# data[].attributes.body
Learn about the compromise that gave slave-owning states greater influence in the federal government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Courtesy U.S. National Archives (1667751)

Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

The three-fifths clause was part of a series of compromises enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The most notable other clauses prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories and ended U.S. participation in the international slave trade in 1807. These compromises reflected Virginia Constitutional Convention delegate (and future U.S. President) James Madison's observation that "...the States were divided into different interests not by their...size...but principally from their having or not having slaves."

When Constitutional Convention delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed that congressional representation be based on the total number of inhabitants of a state, delegate Charles Pinckney of South Carolina agreed saying "blacks ought to stand on an equality with whites...." Pinckney's statement was disingenuous since at the time he knew most blacks were enslaved in his state and none, slave or free, could vote or were considered equals of white South Carolinians. Other delegates including most notably Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania argued that he could not support equal representation because he "could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade...by allowing them [Southern states] a representation for their negroes."

With the convention seemingly at an impasse Charles Pinckney proposed a compromise: "Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives." The Pinckney compromise was not completely original. This ratio had already been established by the Congress which adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 as the basis for national taxation.

Although the three-fifths compromise and others regarding slavery helped hold this new fragile union of states together, many on both sides of the issue were opposed. James Madison and Edmund Randolph of Virginia used the phrase "Quotas of contribution" to argue that slaves should be fully counted, one for one, and opposed the compromise.

Northern opponents correctly pointed out that slaveholding states had more representatives than if only the free white population was counted. By 1793, slaveholding states had 47 congressmen but would have had only 33 if not for the compromise. During the entire period before the Civil War slaveholding states had disproportionate influence on the Presidency, the Speakership of the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Supreme Court because of the compromise. By the 1830s abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison of Massachusetts used the clause in their argument that the Federal government was dominated by slaveholders.

The three-fifths clause remained in force until the post-Civil War 13th Amendment freed all enslaved people in the United States, the 14th amendment gave them full citizenship, and the 15th Amendment granted black men the right to vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) *

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes ...

# data[].attributes.body
Learn how the Constitution addressed the rights of Native Americans and how subsequent laws govern the rights of  indigenous people today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sioux youth from the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota rallied with supporters in Union Square in New York in August 2016 after running 2,000 miles across the United States to protest the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline. (Photo by Joe Catron, via Flickr, CC-BY-NC 2.0)

Although some Europeans arrived in the American colonies with the idea of converting Native Americans to Christianity (which by itself led to resistance), most arrived with designs on Indian land. Thus throughout much of U.S. history, these groups have had a hostile relationship. At times, national and state governments have denied rights to Native Americans, including those protected by the First Amendment. In turn, Indian religious beliefs have sometimes posed dilemmas for the application of such freedoms.

Government moved Native Americans to reservations to be governed by tribes

Most Native Americans regarded the land as something that belonged to everyone, but Europeans brought with them the idea of individual property ownership. As the population of European immigrants increased (often because the diseases they brought with them decimated the Native American populations) and their claims to the land expanded, Native Americans were forced to fight or retreat, and frequently had to sign treaties that recognized the rights of the federal government to their lands. Over time, the government moved many Native Americans to reservations, where the tribes exercised powers not unlike those the states exercised over their own citizens.

Although some Europeans arrived in the American colonies with the idea of converting Native Americans to Christianity (which by itself led to resistance), most arrived with designs on Indian land. Thus throughout much of U.S. history, these groups have had a hostile relationship. At times, national and state governments have denied rights to Native Americans, including those protected by the First Amendment. In turn, Indian religious beliefs have sometimes posed dilemmas for the application of such freedoms. In this photo, a baby catches a nap in his mother's cradleboard in Lander, Wyoming, during the Shoshone Indian Antelope Hunt ceremony, Sept. 16, 1941. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Congress limited the First Amendment freedoms of Native Americans

In the document that emerged from the 1787 Constitutional Convention, "Indians not taxed" were exempted from being counted in the formula for representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Also, Congress was given the explicit power to regulate commerce with Native Americans as well as to enter into treaties with them. In 1800, not long after adopting the Sedition Act, Congress also adopted "An Act for the preservation of peace with the Native American tribes" that limited First Amendment speech and press freedoms as a way of suppressing Native American criticism of U.S. policies and preventing Europeans from stirring them to action.

Courts have struggle with the government relationships of Native Americans

Over time, the courts have struggled with the relationship between Native American nations and the U.S. federal and state governments. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Supreme Court recognized that the tribes constituted "denominated domestic dependent nations." In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Court tried to intervene to protect missionaries in Cherokee Indian Territory whom Georgia was trying to evict because of their support for the Cherokees' resistance to removal from tribal lands. The case was largely mooted, however, when President Andrew Jackson agreed to the removal of the Cherokee to Oklahoma-a decision that resulted in many deaths along the Trail of Tears.

In the 1880s, Roman Catholics became involved in efforts to educate Native Americans, sometimes with the help of the federal government. After some Protestants objected, Congress adopted an Indian Appropriations Act in 1896 that ended the funding, although some support continued through trial trust and treaty funds.

Over time, the courts have struggled with the relationship between Native American nations and the U.S. federal and state governments. Congress did not extend citizenship to all Native Americans until 1924. Even though they have remained citizens, government policies toward them have shifted several times. This photo shows masked Navajo Indian dancers during a ceremony, in New Mexico, in February 1938. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Government policies toward Native Americans have shifted

Congress did not extend citizenship to all Native Americans until 1924. Even though they have remained citizens, government policies toward them have shifted several times. Law professor Rennard J. Strickland (1992) has divided federal policies into five eras:

"(1) the formative or treaty era (1789-1871);

(2) the period of assimilation and allotment (1871-1928);

(3) the time of reorganization and reestablishment (1928-1942);

(4) the termination movement (1943-1961);

and (5) the self-determination and tribal revitalization era (1961-present)."

Congress has adopted numerous laws relevant to Native Americans

In recent decades, Congress has adopted numerous laws relevant to Native Americans. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 extends all of the provisions of the First Amendment (except the establishment clause, which might disadvantage tribal religions) and most other provisions of the Bill of Rights to Native Americans. Another law protects sacred Indian shrines. In 1978 Congress adopted a largely hortatory statement of policy in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. And in other laws it has set aside certain lands in trust for Native Americans and protected Indian graves and funeral objects. Congress has also given Native Americans access to the feathers of American eagles (otherwise forbidden in an attempt to save the species).

Native American religious practice has led to conflict with the government

In part because of past efforts at Christianization, modern Native Americans have a pluralistic religious life that mirrors the larger society. Since the end of the nineteenth century, the Native American religion has often been associated with the ceremonial ingestion of peyote, a mildly hallucinogenic product of cacti. This practice has led to conflict with the war on drugs.

In part because of past efforts at Christianization, modern Native Americans have a pluralistic religious life that mirrors the larger society. Since the end of the nineteenth century, the Native American religion has often been associated with the ceremonial ingestion of peyote, a mildly hallucinogenic product of cacti. This practice has led to conflict with the war on drugs. In this photo, Emerson Jackson, a Native American Church holyman, performs a cedar ceremony outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, Nov. 6, 1989. The Supreme Court heard arguments which may decide whether the American Church participants have a constitutional right to use peyote, a small cactus with hallucinogenic properties, in their religious practices. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, used with permission from the Associated Press)

In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that states were not required to exempt Native Americans who ingested peyote from the general application of its criminal laws (however, in 1994 Congress amended the American Indian Religious Freedom Act to allow Native Americans to ingest peyote for religious purposes). This decision followed Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988), in which the Court refused to prohibit the federal government from building a road through a site in a national forest that was sacred to Native Americans.

In 2016, Native Americans were involved in protests over a pipeline in North Dakota that many believed threatened drinking water. Police eventually used pepper spray and dogs to subdue protestors. President Donald Trump, who has touted the pipeline as part of America's energy policy, has subsequently expedited pipeline construction, which prompted a protest in Washington, D.C. in March 2017.

One recent issue involving Native Americans involves whether a provision in the Lanham Act enabling the United States to reject Patent and Trademark applications that "may disparage" persons or institutions violate the First Amendment. The Lanham Act has been the basis for rejecting some trademarks using Native-American names like "Redskins," "Braves," "Chiefs," "Warriors," and the like.

is a professor of political science and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University. He is co-editor of the Encyclopedia of the First Amendment . This article was originally published in 2009.

Send Feedback on this article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sioux youth from the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota rallied with supporters in Union Square in New York in August 2016 after running 2,000 miles across the United States to protest the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline.

# data[].attributes.headline
TEDTalk (kid friendly): The making of the American Constitution

# data[].attributes.subject
TEDTalk (kid friendly): The making of the American Constitution

# data[].attributes.body
How did a meeting intended to revise the Articles of Confederation lead to the new Constitution for the United States? Discover how a handful of men--sitting in sweltering heat and shrouded by secrecy--changed the course of history for America in 1787.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Making of the American Constitution - Judy Walton

# data[].attributes.headline
Fact-check: The Declaration of Independence 

# data[].attributes.subject
Fact-check: The Declaration of Independence 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John Trumbull's painting "Declaration of Independence," which hangs in the rotunda of the US Capitol, commemorates the document that freed the United States, formerly the 13 British colonies, from European rule in 1776. The concept of freedom, though, was severely limited: slavery was only abolished nearly a century later, and its reverberations of racist violence and mass incarceration subjugate Black people to this day.

In a poignant illustration of this hypocrisy, Arlen Parsa, a Chicago-based documentary filmmaker, covered the faces of every enslaver in the painting with a red circle: a 34 out of the 47 men pictured, most of whom were signers of the Declaration. (The fact-checking website PolitiFact has corroborated Parsa's count.)

"There's a fundamental irony that these men were triumphantly declaring themselves free from what they viewed as the tyranny of King George III - without so much as a thought toward the people who they themselves held in chains much more brutal than 18th-century British taxes," Parsa told Hyperallergic.

He was inspired to create the image in August 2019, a bloody month that saw 53 people die in mass shootings in the US. Seeking to challenge arguments by gun rights advocates, who continue to invoke the Second Amendment and the unswerving authority of the Constitution, he decided to "portray the Founders in a light that made it easier to question their judgment."

Out of the five-man committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence, depicted in Trumbull's painting handing John Hancock an early copy, only two - John Adams and Roger Sherman - did not own enslaved people. Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were all enslavers (as was Hancock).

The founders with red dots are the slaveholders. The founders in yellow are the only ones who freed all the people they held.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, raped one of the women he enslaved.

He freed his illegitimate children. But not their mom. pic.twitter.com/9D1aurjZUD

- Arlen Parsa (@arlenparsa) September 1, 2019

"There were no gentle slaveholders," says Parsa. "Countless children were born into slavery and died after a relatively short lifespan never knowing freedom for even a minute. Jefferson, a man instrumental in creating the Declaration of Independence, held over 600 men, women, and children, in chains for his own profit. He freed less than 10, passing the rest on to his daughter as inheritance. Every telling of his story that sidelines or excuses the brutality for profit at Monticello dishonors the people who lived and died as Jefferson's prisoners."

Parsa later created another collage of the painting, marking the men who later freed the people they enslaved with yellow dots. Does highlighting the figures who were not enslavers put them on an undeserved pedestal, given their likely participation in many other racist practices? Parsa believes that we can focus on one without losing sight of the other.

"When I read about Declaration signers like John Adams who lawyered on behalf of enslaved people trying to free them in court, it's a reminder that many white people at the time absolutely did view slavery as loathsome. That puts a lie to the notion that 'nobody knew any better back then,'" he said, citing a common argument made by defenders of historical slavery.

"If we're looking for historical figures with which to replace statues that are coming down these days, we should certainly consider people like Adams," Parsa believes. "For that matter, have you ever seen a statue of an enslaved person? I haven't, and that feels like a problem. But it's a fixable one."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historical Painting Is Altered to Show Most Declaration of Independence Signatories Were Enslavers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Documentarian Arlen Parsa took John Trumbull's famous work, "Declaration of Independence," and marked the faces of every man that controlled enslaved people with a red dot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Carl Herzog

Enslaved workers harvested some of the most important timbers that make up the hull of USS Constitution. On the densely wooded coastal islands of Georgia, they were forced to do the dangerous, grueling work of cutting massive live oak trees into timber that became the frames of "Old Ironsides." To employ this work, the U.S. Navy paid enslavers living on the land where the trees were being cut, and some of that timber is still part of the ship today. The story of these individuals has remained a little-known part of the intertwined history of slavery in the early United States and the drive to build a navy that would defend American freedom across the world's oceans.

The USS Constitution Museum was recently awarded a grant from Mass Humanities to fund original research into the history of enslaved people in live oak harvesting for Constitution and other early U.S. Navy ships. Until now, our knowledge of the original live oak acquisition for Constitution has largely relied on correspondence between navy officials and the naval agent working at the ship's construction site in Boston. The story has consequently focused on the designer, the naval constructor, and the wood itself. The USS Constitution Museum endeavors to uncover greater detail about the identities of the enslaved people who did this work for the navy, the relationships between enslavers and the navy, and the role of slavery in the creation of USS Constitution and the early U.S. Navy.

Live oak - a strong, durable, rot-resistant wood - was the material chosen to frame the original six frigates of the U.S. Navy. For Constitution, using live oak in the closely spaced hull framing contributed to the ship's ability to carry heavy armament while still sailing swiftly. A lot of wood was needed and, due in large part to the difficulty in acquiring it, live oak was expected to be three times more expensive than other timbers.

In the late 18th century, live oak grew only in parts of coastal South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and along the Gulf Coast. When the navy began sourcing the timber in the 1790s, only the Georgia islands were accessible as part of the nascent United States. The limits on supply and the remote location made it difficult to access and cut the trees. Hauling the large pieces to a wharf where they could be loaded on a ship to Boston was another challenge. Live oak is substantially heavier than white oak and other woods used in shipbuilding, and the odd shapes of the large specialized pieces made moving them particularly difficult.

The navy had originally hired an array of European-descended axemen and specialized woodcutters from New England to go to Georgia and do the work, but they were not successful. After several months, many of them had died from disease and most of the remaining men had deserted the job. A navy captain who was sent to Georgia to ship back the timber discovered that almost nothing had been accomplished, and he turned to enslavers and the stolen labor and skills of their enslaved workers as a solution.

The enslavers living on the land where the trees were located were not intentionally growing live oak. It already existed there, and they were eager to see the land cleared so they could enter the lucrative cotton trade taking hold in the region at the time. Finding a market for the trees, while also collecting pay for the stolen work and skills of the enslaved people cutting the trees, made the proposition even more lucrative for the enslavers. The navy proceeded with this method of procuring live oak timbers for USS Constitution and the other frigates.

More than two hundred years later, thousands of people visit the USS Constitution Museum and USS Constitution each year, but few leave with an understanding of this connection between slavery and USS Constitution. Through this project, the Museum seeks to bring to light the story of the enslaved people connected to the ship's creation, delve into the difficult history of the institution of slavery in the early United States Navy, and use this knowledge to inform our interpretation of the ship and its history today.

The Author(s)

Carl Herzog
Public Historian, USS Constitution Museum

Carl Herzog is the Public Historian at the USS Constitution Museum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Slavery and USS Constitution - USS Constitution Museum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enslaved workers harvested some of the most important timbers that make up the hull of USS Constitution. On the densely wooded coastal islands of Georgia,. . .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Constitution Quiz, Constitution Day Materials, Pocket Constitution Book, US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Articles Of Confederation. Constitution IQ Quiz, Constitution Day Materials, Constitution Bookstore, Pocket Constitution Books, Constitution Amendments. Fascinating Facts about the Constitution, Founding Fathers, Supreme Court and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ConstitutionFacts.com - Learn about the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and much more!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Articles Of Confederation. Constitution IQ Quiz, Constitution Day Materials, Constitution Bookstore, Pocket Constitution Books, Constitution Amendments. Fascinating Facts about the Constitution, Founding Fathers, Supreme Court and more.

# data[].attributes.body
You have the right to vote! Resources and information with all election COVID-19 information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"For this Nation to remain true to its principles, we cannot allow any American's vote to be denied, diluted, or defiled. The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Register to vote. Check your registration status. Get your absentee ballot. Fast, free, easy, secure, nonpartisan.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: A century after women gained the right to vote, majority of Americans see work to do on gender equality

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: A century after women gained the right to vote, majority of Americans see work to do on gender equality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans' views of the current state of gender equality and the advancement of women around the 100th anniversary of women getting the right to vote. For this analysis, we surveyed 3,143 U.S. adults in March and April 2020, including an oversample of Black and Hispanic respondents. The adults surveyed are members of the Ipsos Public Affairs KnowledgePanel, an online survey panel that is recruited through national random sampling of residential addresses and landline and cellphone numbers. KnowledgePanel provides internet access for those who do not have it and, if needed, a device to access the internet when they join the panel. To ensure that the results of this survey reflect a balanced cross section of the nation, the data are weighted to match the U.S. adult population by gender, age, education, race and ethnicity and other categories. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish.

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and the report's methodology.

References to white and Black adults include only those who are non-Hispanic and identify as only one race. Hispanics are of any race.

All references to party affiliation include those who lean toward that party. Republicans include those who identify as Republicans and independents who say they lean toward the Republican Party. Democrats include those who identify as Democrats and independents who say they lean toward the Democratic Party.

References to college graduates or people with a college degree comprise those with a bachelor's degree or more. "Some college" includes those with an associate degree and those who attended college but did not obtain a degree.

A hundred years after the 19th Amendment was ratified, about half of Americans say granting women the right to vote has been the most important milestone in advancing the position of women in the country. Still, a majority of U.S. adults say the country hasn't gone far enough when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, even as a large share thinks there has been progress in the last decade, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Among those who think the country still has work to do in achieving gender equality, 77% point to sexual harassment as a major obstacle to women having equal rights with men. Fewer, but still majorities, point to women not having the same legal rights as men (67%), different societal expectations for men and women (66%) and not enough women in positions of power (64%) as major obstacles to gender equality. Women are more likely than men to see each of these as a major obstacle.

Many of those who say it is important for men and women to have equal rights point to aspects of the workplace when asked about what gender equality would look like. Fully 45% volunteer that a society where women have equal rights with men would include equal pay. An additional 19% say there would be no discrimination in hiring, promotion or educational opportunities. About one-in-ten say women would be more equally represented in business or political leadership.

In terms of the groups and institutions that have done the most to advance the rights of women in the U.S., 70% say the feminist movement has done at least a fair amount in this regard. The Democratic Party is viewed as having contributed more to the cause of women's rights than the Republican Party: 59% say the Democratic Party has done at least a fair amount to advance women's rights, while 37% say the same about the GOP. About three-in-ten (29%) say President Donald Trump has done at least a fair amount to advance women's rights, while 69% say Trump has not done much or has done nothing at all. These views vary considerably by party, with Republicans and Republican leaners at least five times as likely as Democrats and those who lean Democratic to say the GOP and Trump have done at least a fair amount and Democrats far more likely than Republicans to say the same about the Democratic Party.

Views of the role the feminist movement has played in advancing gender equality are positive overall, though fewer than half of women say the movement has been beneficial to them personally. About four-in-ten (41%) say feminism has helped them at least a little, while half say it has neither helped nor hurt them. Relatively few (7%) say feminism has hurt them personally. Democratic women, those with a bachelor's degree or more education and women younger than 50 are among the most likely to say they've benefitted personally from feminism.

Views about how much progress the country has made on gender equality differ widely along partisan lines. About three-quarters of Democrats (76%) say the country hasn't gone far enough when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, while 19% say it's been about right and 4% say the country has gone too far. Among Republicans, a third say the country hasn't made enough progress, while 48% say it's been about right and 17% say the country has gone too far in giving women equal rights with men.

There is also a gender gap in these views, with 64% of women - compared with 49% of men - saying the country hasn't gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men. Democratic and Republican women are about ten percentage points more likely than their male counterparts to say this (82% of Democratic women vs. 70% of Democratic men and 38% of Republican women vs. 28% of Republican men).

The nationally representative survey of 3,143 U.S. adults was conducted online from March 18-April 1, 2020. Among the other key findings:

More cite women's suffrage than other milestones as the most important in advancing the position of women in the U.S. About half of Americans (49%) say women gaining the right to vote has been the most important milestone in advancing the position of women in the U.S.; 29% cite the passage of the Equal Pay Act, while smaller shares point to the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (12%) or the availability of the birth control pill (8%) as the most important milestone.

A majority of Americans say feminism has had a positive impact on the lives of white, Black and Hispanic women. About six-in-ten or more U.S. adults say feminism has helped the lives of white (64%), Black (61%) and Hispanic (58%) women at least a little. But more say feminism helped white women a lot (32%) than say it's done the same for Black (21%) or Hispanic (15%) women. About a quarter (24%) say feminism has helped wealthy women a lot; just 10% say it's been equally helpful to poor women.

About four-in-ten Republican men think women's gains have come at the expense of men. Most Americans (76%) say the gains women have made in society have not come at the expense of men, but 22% think these gains have come at the expense of men. That view is more common among men (28%) than women (17%). Republican and Democratic men are more likely than their female counterparts to say the gains women have made in society have come at the expense of men. About four-in-ten Republican men (38%) say women's gains have come at the expense of men, compared with 25% of Republican women, 19% of Democratic men and 12% of Democratic women.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say that, when it comes to gender discrimination, the bigger problem is discrimination being overlooked. Two-thirds of U.S. adults say the bigger problem for our country today is people not seeing gender discrimination where it really does exist; 31% say people seeing gender discrimination where it really does not exist is the bigger problem. More than eight-in-ten Democrats (85%) point to people overlooking gender discrimination as the bigger problem; 46% of Republicans say the same.

Most Americans favor adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution, even as many don't think this would make much difference for women's rights. About eight-in-ten U.S. adults (78%), including majorities of men and women and Republicans and Democrats alike, say they at least somewhat favor adding the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution. When asked about the impact they think adopting the ERA would have on women's rights in the U.S., 44% say it would advance women's rights, while 5% say this would be a setback for women's rights and 49% say it would not make much of a difference. Even among those who favor adopting the amendment, 44% say doing so wouldn't have much of an impact on women's rights (54% say it would advance women's rights).

A majority of Americans say the country has not gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men

The vast majority of Americans across demographic and partisan groups agree that women should have equal rights with men. More than nine-in-ten U.S. adults say it is very important (79%) or somewhat important (18%) for women to have equal rights with men in this country. Just 3% of Americans say gender equality is not too or not at all important.

Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party (86%) are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners (71%) to say it is very important for women to have equal rights with men. Still, majorities of Republicans and Democrats, including at least two-thirds of men and women in each party, say this is very important.

When it comes to giving women equal rights with men, a majority of adults (57%) think our country has not gone far enough, while 32% say things have been about right; 10% of Americans say the country has gone too far in giving women equal rights with men.

Women (64%) are more likely than men (49%) to say the country hasn't made enough progress on gender equality. However, there is also a sizable party gap. Roughly three-quarters of Democrats (76%) say the country hasn't gone far enough when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, compared with 33% of Republicans. Instead, 48% of Republicans - compared with 19% of Democrats - say things are about right when it comes to gender equality and 17% say the country has gone too far; just 4% of Democrats say things have gone too far.

Across parties, women are more likely than men to say the U.S. has not gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men. About four-in-ten Republican women (38%) say that gender equality has not come far enough, compared with 28% of Republican men. Still, about half of Republican men (51%) and 45% of Republican women say things are about right in the country when it comes to gender equality.

Among Democrats, 82% of women, compared with 70% of men, say the country still has work to do on gender equality. About a quarter of Democratic men (24%) say things are about right in the country when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, compared with 14% of Democratic women who say the same.

Among Democrats, those with at least some college education are more likely than those with no college experience to express dissatisfaction with the current state of gender equality. About eight-in-ten Democrats with a bachelor's degree or more education (82%) and 77% of those with some college education say the country hasn't gone far enough when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, compared with 71% of Democrats with a high school diploma or less education. Among Republicans, there is generally more agreement across levels of educational attainment.

Overall, Americans express more dissatisfaction with the state of gender equality now than they did in 2017, when this question was last asked. Then, half said the country hadn't gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men, while 39% said things were about right and 10% said the country had gone too far. Attitudes have shifted among men and women and Republicans and Democrats alike.

Most Democrats and Republicans say the country has made progress in giving women and men equal rights over the last 10 years

While many Americans say there's still work to be done to achieve gender equality, most say there's been progress over the past decade. Majorities of men and women say the U.S. has made progress in the last 10 years when it comes to giving women equal rights with men. Still, 25% of Americans say things are the same as they were 10 years ago, and one-in-ten say the country has lost ground when it comes to equal rights for women.

Majorities of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (71%) say that, in the last 10 years, the country has made progress on gender equality. However, Democratic women are the least likely to say this: 58% of Democratic women say this, compared with 63% of Democratic men and 71% of both Republican men and Republican women. Instead, 28% of Democratic women say things are about the same as they were 10 years ago (21% of Republican women say the same).

About three-in-ten U.S. men think women's gains have come at the expense of men

When it comes to the gains that women have made in society, most Americans (76%) say the gains have not come at the expense of men, but 22% - including 28% of men - think these gains have come at the expense of men.

Republican men (38%) are twice as likely as Democratic men (19%) to say the gains women have made have come at the expense of men. A quarter of Republican women also say this, less than the share of their male counterparts but higher than the shares of Democratic men and women (12%) that hold this view.

Among women, those without a bachelor's degree are about twice as likely as college graduates to say gains have come at the expense of men (21% vs. 10%); educational differences are less pronounced, though still significant, among men: 30% of men with some college or less education say the gains women have made in society have come at the expense of men, compared with 24% of men with at least a bachelor's degree.

Most who say the country still has work to do on gender equality say equality is likely in the future

On the whole, the majority of Americans who say that the country has not gone far enough to give women equal rights with men think it is very or somewhat likely that women in our country will eventually have equal rights with men. More than eight-in-ten Americans who say the country hasn't made enough progress say this is very likely (31%) or somewhat likely (53%); just 16% say they think it is not too likely or not at all likely.

Large majorities of men and women and Republicans and Democrats who say the country has not yet achieved gender equality say it is at least somewhat likely that men and women will eventually have equal rights, but men (37%) are considerably more likely than women (26%) to say it is very likely.

Among Republicans who say the U.S. has work to do to achieve gender equality, 36% say gender equality is very likely, compared with 29% of Democrats. This difference is driven in part by Democratic women, who are among the least likely to say they expect men and women to eventually have equal rights. Among Democratic women who say the country hasn't gone far enough to achieve gender equality, 23% say they think it is very likely that there will eventually be gender equality; 38% of Democratic men say the same.

Even among the small share of Americans who say the country has lost ground on gender equality in the last 10 years, 76% say it is very or somewhat likely that women will eventually have equal rights with men.

More cite equality in the workplace than any other example as a sign of a society where men and women are equal

Whe n those who say it is important for women to have equal rights with men are asked what a society with gender equality might look like, about half give examples that focus on equality in the workplace: 45% specifically say equal pay, 19% cite no discrimination in hiring and promotion, 5% say men and women getting equal respect in the workplace, and 2% say better paid leave and paternity and maternity support are things they would expect to see in a society where women have equal rights with men.

About one-in-ten cite more or equal representation of women in leadership, with 6% specifically mentioning political leadership and 5% mentioning business leadership. Relatively few point to reproductive rights (4%) and less traditional gender norms (4%) as markers of a society where women have equal rights with men. (Respondents were asked to answer this question in their own words; for respondents who gave multiple examples, up to three responses were coded.)

For the most part, men and women who say equal rights are important have a similar picture of what a society with gender equality would look like, but a larger share of women than men cite equal pay (51% vs. 40%). Still, the gender pay gap tops the list for both men and women who say gender equality is important.

Among women, references to equal pay differ by age. Women ages 50 and older (56%) are more likely than women under 50 (45%) to mention equal pay when describing a society where men and women have equal rights.

Democrats who say gender equality is important are more likely than their Republican counterparts to cite equal pay when asked about a society with gender equality: 50% of Democrats say this, compared with 41% of Republicans. Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to say that more or equal representation in business and politics is a marker of equality (12% vs. 5%).

Wide party and gender gaps in views of the obstacles women face in achieving gender equality

When Americans who say the country has not gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men are asked about the obstacles to achieving equal rights, sexual harassment tops the list: 77% say this is a major obstacle for women. Roughly two-thirds say women not having the same legal rights as men (67%) and the different expectations that society has for men and women (66%) are major obstacles, and 64% say the same about not enough women in positions of power. Some 43% point to family responsibilities as a major obstacle, while fewer cite men and women having different physical abilities (19%) and women not working as hard as men (13%) as major obstacles. Roughly two-thirds (64%) of those who say the country has work to do on gender equality say women not working as hard as men is not an obstacle to gender equality.

Perceptions of the obstacles to gender equality vary across genders. For example, while 71% of women who say the country hasn't gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men cite not enough women in positions of power as a major obstacle to gender equality, 55% of men say the same.

A majority of women who say the country hasn't made enough progress on gender equality also point to women not having the same legal rights as men (73%) and different societal expectations for men and women (72%) as major obstacles to women having equal rights with men. Fewer men who say this see each of these as major obstacles to gender equality (59% and 58%, respectively).

When it comes to the role sexual harassment plays in men and women having equal rights, women who say the country hasn't gone far enough when it comes to gender equality (82%) are more likely than men who say the same (72%) to cite this as a major obstacle, though large majorities of both groups say this.

Among women who say the country hasn't made enough progress on gender equality, those with at least a bachelor's degree are more likely than those who have attended some college or less to say different societal expectations (81% vs. 67%) and not enough women in positions of power (80% vs. 66%) are major obstacles.

Among those who say there's work to be done on gender equality, a majority of Democrats, but fewer than half of Republicans, see not enough women in power as a major obstacle

Among those who say there's more work to be done in giving women equal rights with men, Democrats and Republicans differ on the extent to which certain factors are holding women back. A higher share of Democrats than Republicans point to not enough women in positions of power (72% vs. 41%), women not having the same legal rights as men (73% vs. 51%), sexual harassment (81 % vs. 66%) and different societal expectations (69% vs. 57%) as major obstacles to women having equal rights with men.

Republicans who say the country has not gone far enough to give women equal rights (27%) are more likely than similarly minded Democrats (17%) to say differences in the physical abilities of men and women are a major obstacle to women having equal rights with men, although relatively small shares of each group say this is the case. Meanwhile, there are no significant partisan gaps when it comes to views of family responsibilities (44% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans see it as a major obstacle) or women not working as hard as men (13% and 15%, respectively).

Democratic women are particularly likely to see some of these as major obstacles, while Republican men tend to be the least likely to do so. For example, 78% of Democratic women say women not having the same legal rights as men is a major obstacle to equal rights, as do 65% of Democratic men and 58% of Republican women. In contrast, 42% of Republican men say this is a major obstacle.

And while 77% of Democratic women, 65% of Democratic men and 50% of Republican women say not enough women in positions of power is a major obstacle to gender equality, just 31% of Republican men say the same.

Democrats are nearly twice as likely as Republicans to say there are problems with gender discrimination being overlooked

When it comes to gender discrimination, by more than a two-to-one margin Americans say the bigger problem for the country is people not seeing discrimination where it really does exist, rather than people seeing gender discrimination where it really does not exist (67% vs. 31%).

The vast majority of Democrats (85%) say the bigger problem is people not seeing gender discrimination where it really exists. In contrast, more Republicans say the bigger problem is people seeing discrimination where it doesn't exist (53%) than say the people overlooking discrimination is the bigger problem (46%).

There is a wide gender gap among Republicans. While a majority of Republican men (61%) say the bigger problem is people seeing gender discrimination where it doesn't exist, fewer than half of Republican women (44%) say the same. Democratic men are also more likely than their female counterparts to say this (19% vs. 11%), but 80% of Democratic men and 89% of Democratic women agree that the bigger problem is people overlooking gender discrimination.

More cite women gaining the right to vote than other milestones as the most important in advancing the position of women

When asked about milestones they see as important in advancing the position of women in the U.S., about half of Americans (49%) point to women gaining the right to vote as the most important milestone, a view that is more common among men (52%) than women (46%). Roughly three-in-ten U.S. adults (29%) cite the passage of the Equal Pay Act, while smaller shares say passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the availability of the birth control pill are the most important milestones in advancing the position of women (12% and 8%, respectively).

White adults, as well as those with at least a bachelor's degree, are more likely than Black and Hispanic adults and those with less education to see women's suffrage as the most important milestone in advancing the position of women in the U.S. Some 53% of white adults say women getting the right to vote has been a more important milestone than the passage of the Equal Pay Act, passage of the FMLA or the availability of the birth control pill. Black and Hispanic adults are about as likely to cite the passage of the Equal Pay Act as they are to cite women gaining the right to vote.

Among those with at least a bachelor's degree, 59% see women's suffrage as the most important milestone, compared with 48% of those with some college education and 41% of those with less education. Even so, across educational attainment, more point to women getting the right to vote than to the other milestones as the most important in advancing women's rights in the U.S.

These differences by race and ethnicity and educational attainment are also evident when looking separately at the views of men and women. A majority of white men (57%) cite women gaining the right to vote as the most important milestone, compared with 39% of Black men and 43% of Hispanic men. And while white women are less likely than their male counterparts to say this (49% do so), even smaller shares of Black (36%) and Hispanic (38%) women point to women's suffrage as the most important milestone.

Similarly, men with at least a bachelor's degree (64%) are more likely than women with the same level of educational attainment (54%) to say women gaining the right to vote was the most important milestone. Both are more likely than their less educated counterparts to say this.

Views on this vary little, if at all, by age or partisanship, but Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party are about twice as likely as Republicans and Republican leaners to say the availability of the birth control pill has been the most important milestone in advancing the position of women in the U.S. (11% vs. 5%). Similar shares of Democratic women (12%) and men (11%) say this, compared with 6% of Republican women and an even smaller share of Republican men (3%).

A third of Americans know what year women in the U.S. gained the right to vote

When asked in an open-ended format what year women in the U.S. gained the right to vote, 47% offer a year between 1915 and 1925 (within five years of the correct answer), including 33% who correctly identify 1920 as the year women gained the right to vote. About three-in-ten Americans (31%) say women gained the right to vote in 1926 or later, while just 7% say this happened before 1915. (Some 14% didn't provide an answer.) Men and women give similar answers.

Those who say women gaining the right to vote has been the most important milestone in advancing women's rights in the U.S. are not necessarily more knowledgeable about the timing of this milestone. An identical share of those who cite women's suffrage or the availability of the birth control pill as the most important milestones correctly identify 1920 as the year women gained the right to vote (38% each). Similar shares in these groups offer a year between 1915 and 1925.

Educational attainment is related to knowledge of the year women in the U.S. gained the right to vote. About six-in-ten adults with at least a bachelor's degree (61%) give a year between 1915 and 1925, with 41% correctly identifying 1920 as the year women gained the right to vote. Smaller shares of those with some college (47%) or with a high school diploma or less education (36%) give an answer within five years of the correct year, and a third and quarter, respectively, give the correct answer.

Adults ages 65 and older are more likely than those who are younger to give an answer within five years of the correct year. More than half of those ages 65 and older (55%) say U.S. women gained the right to vote between 1915 and 1925, compared with 49% of those ages 50 to 64, 42% of those ages 30 to 49 and 47% of adults younger than 30.

Majorities say the feminist movement and the Democratic Party have done at least a fair amount to advance women's rights in the U.S.

Seven-in-ten Americans say the feminist movement has done a great deal (22%) or a fair amount (48%) to advance women's rights in the U.S.; 59% say the same about the Democratic Party, including 12% who say it has done a great deal. In contrast, most Americans say the Republican Party (61%) and Donald Trump (69%) have not done much or have done nothing at all to advance women's rights.

Women (73%) are more likely than men (67%) to say the feminist movement has done at least a fair amount to advance the rights of women in the U.S., but large majorities of each group say this. Meanwhile, a larger share of men (40%) than women (34%) say the GOP has done at least a fair amount in this area.

There are far wider partisan gaps than gender gaps when it comes to these views. About three-quarters of Democrats and those who lean Democratic (73%) say the Democratic Party has done at least a fair amount to advance women's rights in the U.S.; fewer than half of Republicans and those who lean to the Republican Party (42%) say the same. Conversely, two-thirds of Republicans - but only 13% of Democrats - say the GOP has done a great deal or a fair amount in this area. Similarly, a majority of Republicans (59%) say Donald Trump has done at least a fair amount to advance women's rights, while just 6% of Democrats say the same.

When it comes to the feminist movement's impact, majorities of Democrats and Republicans say it has done at least a fair amount. Still, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say this (80% vs. 58%).

For the most part, views on this don't vary considerably by gender within each party. Republican women (62%) are more likely than Republican men (55%) to say the feminist movement has done a great deal or a fair amount to advance women's rights, but more than half of both say this. And while Democratic men are more likely than their female counterparts to say their party has done at least a fair amount, about seven-in-ten or more of each group share this view (76% of Democratic men and 71% of Democratic women). Republican men and women give similar views when it comes to how much each of the political parties and Donald Trump have done, and there are no significant differences between Democratic men and women in views of the feminist movement, the Republican Party or Trump.

Majorities say feminism has helped white, Black and Hispanic women

In addition to saying the feminist movement has done at least a fair amount to advance women's rights in the U.S., a majority of Americans think feminism has had a positive impact on the lives of specific groups of women. For example, about six-in-ten or more say feminism has helped the lives of white (64%), Black (61%) and Hispanic (58%) women at least a little, although there are more pronounced differences in the shares saying feminism has helped each of these groups a lot (32% vs. 21% and 15%, respectively). Notably, just 41% of women say the movement has helped them personally.

A majority of Americans (57%) also think feminism has helped lesbian and bisexual women at least a little, including 23% who say it's helped this group a lot. By comparison, 41% say feminism has helped transgender women, with just 11% saying this group has been helped a lot. About one-in-five (21%) say feminism has hurt transgender women, and 17% say the same about its impact on lesbian and bisexual women.

When asked about the impact of feminism on the lives of wealthy and poor women, 49% say it has helped each of these groups at least a little, but while 24% say feminism has helped wealthy women a lot, just one-in-ten say the same about the impact it's had on the lives of poor women.

Opinions about how feminism has impacted each of these groups of women don't differ significantly between men and women. In fact, the shares of men and women saying feminism has helped each of these groups at least a little vary only by 3 percentage points or less.

Majorities of white and Hispanic adults say feminism has helped white, Black and Hispanic women at least a little. Some 64% of Black adults also say feminism has helped white women, more than the shares who say it's helped Black (49%) or Hispanic (48%) women. Black adults are the most likely to say feminism has helped white women a lot: 42% say this, compared with 34% of Hispanics and an even smaller share of white adults (29%).

Consistent with the difference in the shares of Republicans and Democrats who say the feminist movement has done at least a fair amount to advance women's rights, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say feminism has helped each of these groups of women.

About four-in-ten women say feminism has helped them personally

When asked about the impact of feminism on their own lives, 41% of women say it has helped them at least a little, with one-in-ten saying feminism has helped them a lot; 7% say feminism has hurt them, while half say it has neither helped nor hurt.

Some 55% of women with at least a bachelor's degree say feminism has helped them personally, compared with 41% of women with some college education and an even smaller share of those with a high school diploma or less education (30%). In turn, six-in-ten of those with no college experience and half of those with some college say feminism has neither helped nor hurt them; 36% of women with a bachelor's degree or more education say the same.

Hispanic women (46%) are more likely than Black women (36%) to say feminism has helped them personally; white women fall somewhere in the middle (41% say feminism has helped them). There are also differences by age, with 47% of women younger than 50 saying feminism has helped at least a little, compared with 35% of those ages 50 and older.

Among Democratic women, half say feminism has helped them personally, while just 5% say it has hurt them and 43% say it has neither helped nor hurt. By comparison, 28% of Republican women say feminism has helped them, while a majority (60%) say it's neither helped nor hurt; 9% of Republican women say feminism has hurt them.

Most Americans favor adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution

In January 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), nearly half a century after it passed the Senate in 1972. While the ERA has now been ratified by three-fourths of the states, the number required for amending the U.S. Constitution, it is likely to face legal challenges as the deadline for ratification has passed.

The survey finds widespread support for adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution: About eight-in-ten Americans (78%) say they favor it, including 35% who strongly favor it being added to the Constitution. Women are more likely than men to say they strongly favor adding the ERA to the Constitution (39% vs. 31%), but about three-quarters or more in each group say they favor it at least somewhat.

Democrats overwhelmingly favor adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution, with roughly nine-in-ten saying they favor it strongly (51%) or somewhat (37%). There's less support among Republicans: 66% say they favor adopting the ERA, with 16% expressing strong support for this. Republican women (75%) are far more likely than Republican men (58%) to say they favor adding the ERA to the Constitution. Views on this do not differ by gender among Democrats, but they do vary across other dimensions, including educational attainment, race and ethnicity, and age.

Large majorities of Democrats across levels of educational attainment say they favor adding the ERA to the Constitution, but those with at least a bachelor's degree are the most likely to express strong support: 62% say they strongly favor adopting the ERA, compared with 55% of Democrats with some college and a smaller share of those of those with a high school diploma or less education (37%).

Among white Democrats, 58% say they strongly favor adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution. About four-in-ten Black and Hispanic Democrats say the same (42% each). These gaps remain when taking differences in educational attainment into account.

And while more than eight-in-ten Democrats across age groups support adopting the ERA, those ages 65 and older are more likely than those who are younger to express strong support. About six-in-ten Democrats ages 65 and older (63%) say they strongly favor adding the ERA to the Constitution, compared with 46% of Democrats ages 18 to 29 and ages 30 to 49 and 52% of those 50 to 64.

These differences by age, educational attainment and race and ethnicity are present among Democratic men and women. Among Republicans, the only notable demographic split on views of adopting the ERA is along gender lines.

Many say adding the ERA to the Constitution wouldn't make much difference for women's rights

Despite widespread support for adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution, 49% of Americans say this would not make much of a difference when it comes to women's rights in the country; 44% say this would advance women's rights and 5% think this would be a setback for women's rights.

Even among those who favor adding the ERA to the Constitution, a sizable share (44%) is skeptical that this would have much of an impact, while 54% say it would advance women's rights and just 2% see it as a potential setback. Democratic supporters of the ERA are far more likely than their Republican counterparts to say this would advance women's rights in our country (63% vs. 38%). A majority of Republican ERA supporters (59%) say adding it to the Constitution wouldn't make much difference.

Overall, male and female supporters of the ERA offer similar assessments of the impact adding the amendment to the Constitution would have on women's rights; 54% of women and 53% of men who favor adopting the ERA say this would advance women's rights in the U.S. Women ages 18 to 29 are more optimistic than women in older age groups to say adding the ERA to the Constitution would advance women's rights. About six-in-ten women younger than 30 who support the ERA (63%) say adopting the amendment would advance women's rights, compared with about half of older women who favor the ERA.

For the most part, adults who oppose adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution say doing so wouldn't make much difference for women's rights (69% say this), while 20% think this would be a setback for women's rights and 10% say it would advance women's rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Century After Women Gained the Right To Vote, Majority of Americans See Work To Do on Gender Equality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans' views of the current state of gender equality and the advancement of women around the 100th anniversary of women getting the right to vote. For this analysis, we surveyed 3,143 U.S. adults in March and April 2020, including an oversample of Black and Hispanic respondents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Index of Library of Congress Research Guides Research guides to the Library's collections, as well as subject guides prepared by Library of Congress staff, are listed below. More online guides covering other Library of Congress collections are available via the

# data[].attributes.body
Create your own socially distanced walking tour on 9/17

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historical Landmarks in Boston and Beyond

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guide to the most popular historic landmarks in Boston, as well a some off the beaten path gems.