What indepth today live at noon eastern on tv on cspan2. Welcome everyone to this book launch webinar featuring doctor lynn cheney and Vice President cheney in a conversation about doctor cheneys newest book the virginia dynasty the creation of the american nation read on robert, im robert doar. I want to start by reading from doctorcheneys opening paragraph. But the spike enjoy drawing compass of a map of virginia, extend the other leg of the compass so he reaches out 60 miles and draw a circle. Within it not only washington also thomas jefferson, James Madison and james monroe were born. From this small expansive land on the north American Continent came four of the nations first five president s, a dynasty whose members lead in securing independence, building the republic. What a great way to start a book. I spent most of last night reading it and its a wonderful chronicle of four major leaders and the interconnected networks that tie them together at the founding of this country. It is a story that evokes what historian bill mclean calls the spirit of hope and perseverance that runs straight through the american experience. Doctor cheney is a longtime member of the faculty so i want to take a moment to acknowledge how much we appreciate her scholarship and contributions to ai, not to mention the service she has done for our country. This is the latest in the series of several works by doctor cheney examine our countrys history with rigor. Her last book James Madison a life reconsidered became a New York Times bestseller in 2014 and shed new life on the one of our nations founders. I want to thank doctor cheneys interviewer, Vice President cheney for his service to our country and great friendship to aei. Im so pleased to have both of you with us for this conversation and we will be taking questions after their conversation so if you want to ask questions you can email the Research Assistant at Catherine Quigley and thats Catherine Quigley aei. Org or on twitter at virginia dynasty aei. A well triggered piece of aei history terms the time that cheney conducted an interview with the current Vice President mike pence. Mister cheney was relentless, asked tough questions that challenged him. It was a great dialogue but there were some timid souls, not me of course worried our questioner and pushed the envelope. Im sure you will agree Vice President cheney your adversary today is far more formidable than the one you faced that day. So i want you to know, half at it, give it your best shot. Where not concerned and with that i want to turn it over to doctor cheney to speak about her new book the virginia dynasty. Thank you robert and i think you really did lay out the context by reading this part of the preface that you did and its where i started. It was just remarkable to me that on this isolated part of what was in a not very important continent and certainly not an important colony, well, virginia was an important colony but it was on the periphery of everything, that in that spot these four men would grow to greatness and so i think the preface is as you read it so well really does add the context. I agree, take it away Vice President or are you guys going to go to questioning now . Usually she has more to say but we will get there. I was struck to as lynn just mentioned that when you take the enormous consequences of what these men did and how they were able to achieve and what they were part of in terms of building the United States of america and all that it entailed, our political systems and so forth and at the time, it was a real backwater as far as the world goes. , now circle around what is now washington dc but at the time it was, you cant help but think about it as an outoftheway spot and just remarkable accomplishments for a handful of men who were involved in the effort. Is that question . No. I have to forgive dave for that because as far as he knew, for a very long time for five or six years i disappeared. And i was writing away on my book in the far corners of the house and i think you must have wondered what i was doing. Thats been that way many times through a 56 year marriage. I did want to say your presence was always felt here miss cheney. We knew where you were and it was a great joy to have your work going on inside our building and with the Research Assistance you worked with and your examples that you set for everyone who works here. So you may have missed, mister Vice President but we didnt. Its a mystery to people who dont write books out anyone can spend five, six, seven years writing a book. But i just love it. I love the momentum that you build up as you learn more and more of it. And i love the research. The writing im not so sure about. But the research particularly , we have when you have terrific Research Assistance such as ihave had , its just one fascinating question after another. And this is what takes me so long is i go down every rabbit hole. Even when im pretty convinced at the outset that i will never put any part of what im doing in the book. You have to love as i do research and i like writing a lot. But in order to spend this amount of time on a project you have to love yoursubjects to. One of the questions that comes to mind is not only were these men architects of our tremendous political system and so forth and freedom and liberty and all that entailed in that, most of them also ownedslaves. And that was clearly a significant element as we go forward into our history in the 19th century, but how do you reconcile on the one hand the architects of our historic political system and the fact that most of the men , most of the architects were in fact owners of slaves . Thats become a very big question nowadays. As you see statues of washington being tossed into the river. I am not opposed to taking down the confederate soldiers , the confederate leaders. They were traitors to the union. And i think that take those statues down would be fine but i do, i mean, im appalled actually when statues of washington fall or when the dc government as a commission that suggests that if we dont start explaining the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial better, then maybe they should be moved to some other place. They cant do this because those statues and those monuments are on private land. And im appalled that this. And the hook for it isusually they were slaveholders. Well, a new slaveholding was wrong. Jefferson i think called it a stain on virginia and others spoke of it as a mortal sin and jefferson called it a mortal sin against god so they were very aware of the dilemma in which they lived. The contradiction in which they existed. But they found themselves unable to circumstances, the circumstances were not such that they could achieve the full emancipation that justice demanded. That didnt stop them once they understood what a unique place they were in, what a unique time they were in. They were all educated in the enlightenment, in the scottish enlightenment. The ideas of freedom and liberty and justice and equality, they were central to that. The scottish enlightenment and they were all or, they were washington dedicated but the other three went to find schools though they were perfectly ready to start a new nation based on the very highest rentable. And thats what they did. You write that it is a contradiction but i sure am glad they did it. How long did it take youto write the book . Im not sure, hello . We are disconnected. There you go. Robert, we have no sound. The producers would like me to take a backseat so that the two of you can just dialogue, where all hanging on every word i assure you so we can hear every word, the audience can hear every word and i think im getting the cops sign for me so that we just leave it to you. I didnt want to follow that because im enjoying it so much and i feel like im there with you but sometimes youve got to listen to the staff. So im backing out so the two of you can engage in a dialogue and were all enjoying it so keep. Everybody okay with that . Sure, you were just about asked mea very tough question. Why did you write the book , youd written your biography before on madison which we were very proud of that and legitimately so. It was on the New York Times list, just did this roll out of that experience, the time you spent on madison . It was certainly the case that i saw when i was working on madison how important relationships were to him and jefferson in particular. I mean, they were committed to one another for life. Madison was also, his life was entwined with monroes and everybodys life was entwined with washingtons. I really did quite a lot of research on the synergy of groups. What happens when you have people of fine intellect, welltrained in one place and it turns out that what happens is that they inspire one another. Their conversations lead them to thoughts theymight not have had otherwise. Their disagreements are important. Out of the disagreement, and it was a huge disagreement that washington had with madison and jefferson and monroe to some extent, munro for sure. Out of that quarrel came political parties. Washington bought the government ought to be run in one way and that was like your politicians and then you leave them alone. Thats right, the voters should go home and just leave politicians alone. That wasnt how jefferson and madison in particularwere thinking about it. They really believed politicians were as subject to criticism as any other citizens and that may washington crazy. So thats when the original divide between washington on the one handand the other three , the three younger men began. Which one did you most admire . I like to think of it this way, which one would i like to have lunch with . And the answer is its got to be jefferson. Youre looking puzzled that. I would have assumed it was madison. Thats different. What kind of an experience must it have been to have jefferson talk about his experiment or have jefferson talk about a series of governments or have jefferson talk about anything . He was such a remarkable man and was modest, she had no idea it was the president elect. So he would be a great person tohave lunch with. I do admire medicine more real he is steady, stable. Not subject to womens, very profound thinker. The most studious of them all. Course, he had a wonderful wife, dolly. He was really an unusual person in her time. He didnt think twice about asserting herself. And she was three or four inches taller than madison. And when they went out, neither of them seemed to care that she wore close in her turbine that they were probably afoot taller than madison. He loved her extravagance and i think people generally love the incredible way she dressed. She had one outfit that was pink, velvet and decorated with many chains, i think it was moorish but everyone knew. Everyone knew how exciting the dress was that there were some women that were distressed that she showed so much of herbalism and it wasnt the style at the time but one woman wrote to another why doesnt she use a handkerchief and what she meant was why doesnt she took a handkerchief in her. If you look at the portrait of Dolly Madison inthe white house , its certainly the mostrevealing. And thats dolly, she wasjust out there. Interesting. In the current environment, i cant help but talk about something thats current. The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg obviously has set up a situation for apparently a fairly bitter fight in terms of making her replacement in terms of her role and so forth. There were times when in your book when there were conflicts between the members that i think most of it, those of us who read the history of the era have a tendency to think women were working hard and doing good things and not spending much time or even being aware of the extent to which there were conflicts among them. And i just wonder how that crew would look at this whole question of appointing a new Supreme Court justice before the election and one of the first women to serve on the court, if that doesnt create some, im curious how that would have been dealt with high your four president s. Can i just say a word about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I think its been deemed politically incorrect perhaps because i havent heard a Single Person mention what a sense of style she has. She was not only a great justice. She was a great lawyer, a great intellect and she also had a sense of style. He was always wearing something alittle exotic. There was a picture of the Supreme Court members walking down the steps of the building and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had on a long skirt and its so appropriate for that moment. She just had that. So now my politically incorrect compliments. They would have fought just as hard as i suspect our senators in the country as a whole are going to fight. One more thing about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, during the Merrick Garland nomination, someone asked her if she thought that the president should wait and not appoint in his last year before the election or if she thought that the senators should hold off voting and her answer was look, the president is still the president in the last year. And the job of the senators is to vote. So i think it shows the kind of changes that people in public life sometimes undergo. Madison changed all thetime. He was the father of the constitution. He was the man who got the bill of rights through, but after he had struggled to make the Constitutional Convention work, he wasnt sure that the constitution was any good. But within three or four weeks he was promoting it and he promoted on the basis that we really needed a more powerful government. In the end he changed his mind about that too. And he came worried about a very powerful central government. A british politician once said sir, speaking of someone i dont know what was, sir. When the situation changes i change my mind. What do you do sir . So i think that part of the backandforth about supporting what when is just a National Part ofpolitics. And certainly , washington, madison, jefferson had a very fraught relationship with john marshall. Who by the way, had gone to school withmonroe. The world of the late 18th, early 19th century is so little. You keep coming across connections. I think Bernard Ellen once said it was like a Little Country of cousin ray and i wrote everyones related to everyone else in a way. So i think they would have fought it out hard. Im intrigued by some of the debate discussions on the court. With talking about Justice Ginsburgs contributions and so forth. A personal friend of mine course was scully. Which, we used to fish together and i was always struck by the relationship between Ruth Bader Ginsburg because they were such opposites in terms of their positions they represented. Between conservative and ginsburg being a liberal. But they were very close. Personally and in terms of families and time spent together and so forth. And i can remember Justice Scalia talking about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and in glowing terms how much he enjoyed their relationship. Its interesting and it always appeared to me and honestly you are much closer to it than i that it was based honestly on opera. And their love for Classical Music and just Justice Ginsburg said at one point when i go and listen to the opera, the voices inside my head stop. And im just relieved of the feeling of conflict. And uplifted by it. And i have never heard talk about why he loved opera so much. But i suspect it was probably the same. One of the things you touch on in the book is the extent to which there was conflict between these men who were in some respects all involved in the founding of the nation. My feelings and obviously i wasnt there then but there is a feeling i think in the country today that the relationships politically, have evolved in a way that its not what you expect or what the feelings between the congress and the white house and president and so forth, the relationships arepretty severely strained. The battles are significant. And my own sense of it is that this has been some 50 years for walking. Working across the aisle and no one ever really condemns you for doing it, talk about jack murtha. Murtha. Well, he was a significant ally of yours. Jack was a democrat from pennsylvania. When i arrived here in 1966, to work on on the hill for the first time, over the years a Good Relationship to grow up. I look back on my time for years i spent a secretary of defense as a republican secretary of defense. My strongest ally in the house, a man i did the most work with was jack murtha turkey was a marine, the first vietnam vet elected to congress, and he was my closest ally. He chaired the defense appropriations subcommittee in the house while i was secretary of defense and so there were relationships like that. I would call them significantly different from a lot of what we see today happening on capitol hill. I have always anticipated some degree of Cooperation Among the founders, but your book shows that sometimes the down and dirty they are just like it was now, congress. I think the steadiest and probably the most rewarding relationship for both men was jefferson and madison, and it didnt always agree. Jefferson tried to undermine the constitutional ratification. He sent letters out to friends who then showed them on the floor of the Virginia Assembly where they were undertaking a crucial ratification, criticizing the constitution, suggesting they not ratify it so that there could be more discussion and maybe some changes that should be made. Madison, as i say, the steadiest of all, didnt get mad or at least not so that he showed it. He just quit writing for jefferson for a while. Jefferson was embarrassed at this time. It took madison a long time to send jefferson a copy of the federalist papers. I just love it as an example. Jefferson sort of winging it. I i think ever criticize the constitution now, or the constitutional ratification. And madison just holding fast and not losing his temper. I think that jefferson must have been a very difficult friend. Fascinating. Now, its 11 30. Why dont you ask me a couple more questions and then we will go to the questioners who were in the chat room. When we married you were a phd in english literature. This is true. Obviously you drifted quite a ways ways away from that but youve gotten involved in history, spent a lot of time on American History. And on political history. I always felt i i should add me history than i did political sites, being more valuable and more useful to me. But how did you account for that transition you made from literature to politics, the founding fathers, et cetera . I couldnt get a job as a literature major. I began writing and there were some very nice people along the way who allowed me to do historical writing for different magazines and outlets. And i wrote history. I drifted towards it. Theres a sense of i dont think i could it was just not political sites, you could do that, i dont know why. I miss the idea you could possibly get a phd in history, but i did. When i got a chance to start writing it was really quite wonderful, and this one job i had allowed me every month to go take one aspect of washington, d. C. , and describe it, explain it, you know, really get to the underlying basis of it, subjects from Arlington Cemetery to the column. They are all over washington. The columns around washington, why, why we had all of these columns. It was the kind of assignment that simply whet my appetite, and this just a direction which i headed. Would you like to trip over to the folks at i would venture there got some questions. But i like yours. Im coming back just to say thank you. That was just lovely, and we hung on every word, and to trip over to alton sterling doing resident at aei to continue the monitoring the question for the audience. I couldnt resist come back on saying thank you to both. That was just a wonderful conversation. J, take it from here. And two, robert. My name is jay cost, and the general art for visiting scholar at aei. Its a real pleasure to be with both of you today, doctor cheney, Vice President cheney. We had some interesting questions. The first one i want to ask you about is the quality of statesmanship among these men, and im really struck that it pointed all the professionals lives they want to go home with wanted to stay home. Washington didnt want a second term. Jefferson rather than take the secretary of state. Madison, akin montpelier with a wife and young stepson. Monroe was in europe and he wanted to go home. But they all sacrificed for the sake of the good of the country. Can you tell us your thoughts on what qualities of statesmanship or leadership that set four man apart. Was certainly a sense of the importance of the task that they were about. It was enormous. It was such an opportunity to build a country based on freedom. It was an irresistible calling to them. Youre right, it also was punching, and so madison went home, washington whenever he could. But i think it was six years that washington was gone from home during the revolution, and at one point madison spent far more time at a boarding house in philadelphia than he did at home. I think that reflects the feeling that they each had they had a great task, feeling as though youre part of something bigger than yourself, but that was very attractive to them. While they nearly all went broke in the end, and no doubt that was part of the fact they had been absentee land owners for so long, there were many, many reasons, but i dont think, if you had asked them the choice, would you rather have had a life in which you died well off, or had a life we create a great nation . Im pretty sure they wouldve chosen the latter. Interesting. Another reader points out this sort of network of men that you discuss in your book, these four titans of the virginia dynasty, there were other networks as well, the bostonians, adams, quincy and the hancox. Also look in new york and philadelphia with hamilton, robert morse, philip shiloh. How would you describe the relationship of these different networks, especially in lightf the fact the Eastern Networks were more focused on commerce while the Virginia Network was obviously much more agricultural and economic background . They didnt see the world quite the same way. Theres a wonderful quotation. Gosh, i cant remember who wrote it, maybe you can help me, jay, in which person a set of john adams, hes wonderful, entertaining, smart but hes half mad. Washington was appalled when he became commander of the Continental Army and went to boston at moneygrubbing. In virginia you didnt moneygrubbing partly because you had slaves who didnt in the end, in the end slavery just didnt work. In the end it did not allow a profitable enterprise. But they were much more polite than adams was. He was just out there kicking up dust and stirring up trouble. Very well put. Thats just one example. I think the northerners and the softeners from the beginning were very different. And part of the reason that the civil war happened is they never really reconciled those differences, and certainly the north did not, by the middle of the 19th century, reconciled itself to slavery. Yes. Can you speak a little bit about monroe . The first three, the big three, all have these grand titles, the father of his country, author of the declaration of independence, father of the constitution. Monroe is often under looked, but your book, by choosing to focus on somebody like, choosing marshall over monroe. What do you think he added and what are we may be as 200 years later, what have we as society, with have we missed about them . We missed a lot for a long time because there were not comprehensive addition of his papers. And there is now, and so i expect in the years ahead we will see a lot more monroe scholarship. He was such a curious man. He angered perhaps more than any other. Washington had a formidable temper, but monroe is one of the people he was angry about most of the time was washington. Monroe and sit down and write e scathing letters, memos to washington telling in what a worthless person he was and how he was leaving the country into monarchy. This is fascinating, and i dont think we have been able to pay enough attention to it before. But to see this aspect of this character, and then realize that this fight, what seems like lia grievance flaw, his ability to anchor so quickly and easily, he was a good president. He didnt preside over great defense like the Louisiana Purchase, though of course he was there at the Louisiana Purchase doing some part of the negotiating. But his achievements were great nonetheless. It was monroe with John Quincy Adams help that made the United States a continental nation. The air of good feeling people always make fun of this description of mine rose his terms in office come his two terms, was in some sense real. There was a calm in the country and there was a calm in the presidency. He had the most stable cabinet of any of the president. And i think thats sort of a security in continuity that people felt. Thank you. Want to talk a little bit about the revolutionary war and helped shape their character here because all four of them participated in some sense, right, washington and monroe in the military since, jefferson, governor of virginia and fled from the capital much to the delight of patrick henry. James madison of course being short and slight as he was was not cut the military cloth was in philadelphia struggling through the problems of public finance, especially. Can you talk about the ways in which the war shaped the character, shaped their understanding of the union . Just how did that affect them . In madisons case, he could not become a warrior because he had epilepsy. This is a theory i think i pretty much substantiated in my madison book. He would simply have complex partial seizures every once in a while, and as he described it, the intellectual functions would be suspended. It seems as though he had such an event when he was practicing to be a soldier. He was out on the field. The story is not told entirely, but it sure seems as though thats what happened. He then of course it didnt feel he could serve in the military and the military probably didnt want him at that point. So that was madisons story. A feeling of being a left out, but then turning to what he knew best. He began studying governments and constitutions. He was interested in it even is a very young man. That study became more and more important to him. Lets see, so jefferson. Well, jefferson spent his whole life trying to prove he wasnt a coward for having first led richmond and then fled charlottesville. The charlottesville exit was very humorous in a way for us looking back. He basically tried to act like he didnt, he wasnt worried, you know, and it was at his home in charlottesville i believe, and invited legislators to stay the night and give them food and drink. A young man came to warn him that the british were coming. He offered him finally people begin leaving and jefferson was certainly one of the last to leave and he tried to do it very casually, but in the end he took his fastest horse and galloped away. Right, very good. I forget, washington. Well, monroes argument with washington, and i think with washington in particular, his argument was that washington didnt appreciate what he had done. Monroe was nearly killed at the crossing of the delaware, taken out of action, not given the commission he thought he deserved. And i think all of those things made them feel as though washington was turning his back on him. So the war did that to monroe, and so washington of course, it was an opportunity for glory. But is also a tough slog. One of the things i admire that it is no matter how tough the slog, he conveyed an aura of confidence. Not at the beginning. Its very interesting, at the beginning his troops were worried about its indecisiveness. But as the war went on and the people came to really understand him better, it was that rockhard confidence or ability to appear confident that was very important. Right. It speaks, this idea projecting confidence, just more broadly all four of them had a very distinct ethos, i dont know what the right word is, but their public appearance. Washington obviously having to lead men impose a very difficult situation, but even madison. One of our viewers right to the points out that madison participate in College Debate societies. He was in the wake society at princeton, and prepared them in ways for public life and how they put themselves in public. In this age were i personally am so chagrined by seeing politicians just pop off on twitter all the time just was such a lack of decorum. Is there a way that we can recapture that, particularly preparing young people for engagement in the public sphere, an expectation of what it means to participate in those . Because the virginians certainly had very distinct sense of public dignity. Which seems to be lost today. Well, i do think that the atmosphere in virginia encouraged people, and courage to men, very young age to participate in public service. When they were 24, 25, 26, when they, when they were very young they became members of the house of burgesses, and took part in actual legislation and saw older men sought older men who impress them greatly. So i think that helped them. Probably we shouldnt overestimate the amount of composure and politeness that you know where im going that they later demonstrated with their debating society, which often involved very rocket lyrics that you would not want repeated in front of children. They had a lively time at princeton as well as learning a great deal from a great man named john witherspoon. A question for you, mr. Vice president. Thomas jefferson was among his many accomplishments, served for four years as Vice President. How would you assess his tenure as Vice President . Well, he didnt do a thing. [laughing] he did get squared away, set up, so to speak, to be president. No mean achievement. Domain achievement. Speculating that that is a hopedfor outcome for a lot awful lot of our predecessors. Not many of them made it. A couple. But theres a sense now that taken on more significance and so forth, that its a legitimate job. You are earning your pay, so to speak. None of that is true in the last, oh, that probably at least since garner. Thats an interesting question. I dont think of jefferson as Vice President. In the way i i thought of mysef as Vice President , you know . But the history is such that its clear that the job didnt amount to much for an awful lot of people who held it over the years. I guess as a followup of course because jefferson became Vice President , having finished second in the Electoral College to john adams. If you could reimagine American History which of the second place finisher in president ial elections become Vice President s, how would you react to that . Another way think you think the 12th amendment was an improvement . Boy, i dont know, thats an interesting question. I think most recently very harry truman, even though he was haberdasher from missouri, and his involvement though when he took over, his lack of roosevelt had really included him in anything in the period of time when he was Vice President , and he came in and ended world war ii. He won the cold war, got a start in since. Truman was in my mind democratic but strong president. It was his time as Vice President that really set it up to perform that task. I have to just interject a motor because this makes me laugh. The vice presidency, from the beginning, was an afterthought. In order to establish voting in the very first instance, as you pointed out, everybody just ran as a pack, and the person got the most votes as long as was the majority come was the president and the member who got the second number was Vice President. Now its really an afterthought. The question was, well, what i wouldnt been going to do with them . We have got this president now, now what . They could only think of one job. They gave him the presidency of the senate, and they did that largely because it wanted to keep them out of trouble. I remember when i was president of the senate. I had to sit up there in one of those chairs in front of the house chamber. Didnt you cast a type breaking photo 1. Was seven or eight times. I was busy. [laughing] yes, you were. Were just about out of time but i had one final question because we talked a lot about the history of these men and especially your question, is to Vice President , talking about contemporary politics. Everybody agrees this is very unsettled age, difficult times for our country. What do you think would be may be one or two lessons that virginia dynasty can, we today, can take from this sort of guide our politics moving forward . Gosh, they were a raucous bunch, fighting with each other. They were smart. That may be a very important element. Jefferson was smart in the kind of flighty way. Monroe was smart any kind of practical way. He looked at other people like medicine and said, how do i succeed in the way he did . Washington had kind of innate natural intellect, and i think that kind of attitude, that kind of inches toward intellectual issues helped make them successful. I do have one more question, a late arrival, somebody is running late. Ask what you think about the musical hamilton and we members of the dynasty are remembered therein . Well, i loved hamilton. We saw it a long time ago when it was still offbroadway, and i had heard about how once i got us tickets. Had the hardest time in the world persuading dick to go to a rap musical, but he did and he really admired it as well. Fantastic. I cant, well, i thought washington was well, humorously done, but madison was what i found most disappointing. I know you were not supposed to try to look like the fellows that you were impersonating, but madison was kind of a big old oak of the man honk bent over, that seems to me so far from, that when caught my attention and i thought i might of change that a little bit. Right. Wonderful. Thank you so much for your time. This is been such an educational, enjoyable opportunity for me to speak with you, based on the questions i think our viewers enjoy. Good luck with the book publicity. Just best wishes to you both. Thank you so much. Thank you. On our Author Interview program after words edward ball discusses life of his greatgreatgrandfather of member of the ku klux klan in louisiana during the years after the civil war. Heres a portion. I think White Supremacy is a spectrum of consciousness. It is not just white violence against people of color, but it is an attitude of mines that crosses the whole political spectrum. Many white people tell anyone who asks that their families were not entitled. Their families do not experience the benefits of whiteness. Their families have struggled and have come up from modest beginnings to the kind of precarious foothold in economic life. In many ways they are telling the truth. A a family who comes through els island in the turnofthecentury, 1900s, 1910s, enters a quite low level on the platform of american society. But when they arrive at ellis island they set the foot on the upper tier of a twotier Caste Society that has been shaped by slavery and jim crow. Hence, they are able to rise into Property Ownership and Economic Prosperity using tools that are denied africanamericans. Thats also a part of Family History that most people are unable to acknowledge. To watch the rest of this Program Visit our website booktv. Org and click on the afterwards tab and youll find all our previous episodes of afterwards. Humpty dumpty wanted to crown. Trumpty dumpty wanted the crowd to make certain he never would have to step down. You wanted a robe made a velvet. The constitution he wanted to shelve it. With impeachment awash his ambition had grown. He wanted an orb, a center, a throne six royal palaces, six royal carriages, a church for six royal marriages