Transcripts For CSPAN3 Reconstruction And The U.S. Supreme Court 20240714

Annual history symposium entitled reconstruction in the long reconstruction to 150 years towards freedom. I am the chief historian, you can call me truck. Please not call me the guy in charge because none of this couldve happened without the involvement of so many here, in this society. It is an all hands, all board operation. Taking charge of the logistics and influencing much of the symposium contacted lauren borchard, the societys director of historical programs, she has helped along by charlotte cummings, and several other Staff Members as well as a whole host, of enthusiastic volunteers. Theyll do this not just once a year, but are not routine races on our Public Program including a noontime lecture series. The next one is coming up on the 29th of may, the other ones is a halfpage red fire on the registration flyer outside and i would like you to encourage you to fill out the questionnaire that you found on the desk in front of you when you came in. I will leave to the society Jane Campbell, the honor of introducing the symposium esteemed, outspoken, and everywhere a small director Paul Finkelman. Jane campbell is our new Society Director a few months ago and a few months of everybody that has met her everyone knows what a terrific acquisition we have made as we move ahead, to our project mms American History and of the people across the nation and across the world. Jane comes to us after previous life and elective office. Is a senior Congressional Staff person and like all of us here. An advocate to history. In the conviction that history matters. Not merely for the sake of knowing rather than not knowing, but for the sake of making decisions about our collective future. Please join me in welcoming Jane Campbell [ clapping ]. Thank you very much chuck, i want to make sure you all acknowledge, the staff of the society, everyone that has a yellow badge please stand up, lauren, linda, sam, chuck. Laura. As i said, to those of you that were with us yesterday, i can take no credit for this. I have been in the society for two and half months, let us say there was a parade moving along and they asked me to stand in front of it. So, it is my pleasure to welcome you, it is also my pleasure to share, in the first symposium i have shared in the first one. I thought maybe it would just be helpful, if we took a quick minute. If we think about the history of yesterday and all that we learned yesterday. It was a incredibly informative day, we had an amazing speaker, we got a real sense of president grant and how we move in a military leader to a pill political leader, and how we dealt with the challenges of trying to reunite the union. Create reconstruction, and make the promise that was answered in the end of slavery and real dissipation into something that was meaningful. Every lecture that we heard all the yesterday, reminded us, that slavery, defined, and still defines today how many of our political structures operate that that part of our history was really still wandering through our power taken at the court value of our country of freedom, and equality, that we can be a government of the people, by the people and for the people, is put to the test on a regular basis. As we try to include people, include africanamericans, include people who have come from other places. Who knew before yesterday, at least i did not, at the bureau of Indian Affairs attributed leadership of its efforts to various leader organizations. We learned, 18 . 70 has had an entirely different take on the citizenship question. Imagine if the senses, as part of their business to remind people that had a right to vote. When that be different. We saw the depictions of soldiers and artists, who presented the trauma, also the determination to fight for the United States. We discussed the early reparations proposal, that stayed in congress. We recognized that debate does still go on. We concluded the day with Heather Cox Richardsons analysis, of how reconstruction shape politics, not just in the immediate aftermath of the civil war, but still today. And, we learned that the fear of socialism, emerged in 1870. So today, we have our final theories of its speakers looking at how the Supreme Court, has influenced reconstruction, and a long reconstruction, how the congress has engaged and reacted and how the politics of Andrew Johnsons impeachment. We have this Incredible Group of speakers, because we have chosen well. We chose well our symposium director who is the next person i will present to you. Doctor Paul Finkelman is the president of graft college, he has been engaged, as a leader and professor at harvard, albany, duke, saskatchewan, hes the author of over 200 scholarly articles, and the author and editor of 50 books. His next book supreme injustice, slavery and the highest court, is gorgeous is expected to be published soon. I will now present to you, doctor Paul Finkelman our symposium director. [ clapping ] thank you very much, it is always fun to talk at your own conference. Because then you dont have to bother introducing herself. So what i would like to talk about, is how the Supreme Court sabotaged reconstruction, in order to understand, the enormity of what the court does, i want to lay some background. At one level, the civil war is a revolution, and in every revolution there is a change in the legal structure. The civil war change is obviously a variety of ways, the abolition of slavery, both through the emancipation proclamation, the dc emancipation act that preceded it, the acts of liberation that was conducted by general grant and sherman and the other members of the United States army as it swept through the south. Including as we know approximately 200,000 black soldiers, who many of whom had in fact been slaves when the work began. There is this revolution of property ownership. 4 Million People are no longer property they are now individuals, and under the 1866 Civil Rights Act followed by the 14th amendment, these people are now citizens of the United States and this is a revolution in a variety of ways, including a revolution in law. The third team 14tha15th amendment are the most dramatic of legal revolution, that takes place in the United States. Certainly since the bill of rights was adopted, and nothing has been as dramatic i think i lost my microphone for second. The revolution, in law began, almost immediately after the war began when people talk about the war, they talk about well the purpose of the war was to preserve the union, not about slavery. That is true for about the first couple hours of the war, once the work is moving, it becomes very clear, whether anyone wants to admit it or not that this is a work, that is about slavery, and that there should be no illusions about that because of course as we know, from these statements of the South Carolina Secession Convention and the declaration of causes secession, through the other session conventions, every Secession Convention made clear that the south was not the seating over something called estate rights, not because there were factories in the north because it is also factories in the south this was not, in agrarian revolt on the oppressive capital of the mother than the fact that in and i will await the farmworkers are free in the mississippi they are slaves. The economies are almost identical. This is the were about human freedom and about slavery, and as Alexander Stephens correctly said, the cornerstone of the confederacy is both slavery, and the belief in this is a part, people never want talk about, and the belief that africanamericans, are genetically inferior to white people and therefore, should always be slaves so this is the first country created clearly and openly on the basis of a racial ideology. So, we have to understand that the war is about slavery, and slaves understand this because they start running away immediately, by may, remember by may slaves are running to u. S. Army camps and contraband policy Donald Butler a lawyer that figures out theres a legal way, to do this, begins the ending to slavery and Congress Passed the first confiscation act in july 1 time in the United States Congress Said we have the right as a government to take slaves away from people, and free those slaves, so it goes, the competition act and the dc emancipation act, and the congress, demanding the integration of the streetcars in the district of columbia, Congress Creating schools for black people, the first time in the country the federal government is creating schools for black people the militia act, reverses a policy that had been since the 1790s of not allowing black people in the military. 1866 Civil Rights Act, the enforcement acts the ku klux klan acts, the 18th of this is a revolution in law. It is also a revolution in state law in 1868 before the 14th amendment is ratified, the iowa Supreme Court declares, that segregated schools are unconstitutional, under the iowa constitution. So, we have the precursor to brown before there is a 14th amendment. Clark by the way Alexander Clark will ultimately be the u. S. Ambassador, of liberia in the 1990s. So, the long reconstruction is about the changes that are taking place, when a man sues to get his daughter into the Public Schools, to becoming a u. S. Ambassador of liberia. Immediately after the war ends as we know, the confederates are still running their legislature, within two years the black codes are repealed as africanamericans and white unionist began to take over southern legislatures again, a revolution in law, that takes place, probably the most obvious example is laws which say that its now okay for africanamericans and white americans to get married. In the south. This is part of the revolution in law. In louisiana, laws are passed and we will circle back to the salon a second. It says, you cannot segregate lock people on riverboat in louisiana, that that is a violation of the law in louisiana, and black people began this is a leak this is illegal as well is in the political process because you have to legally vote to hold office and you have to be legally holding office. The black vote helps elect grant in 1868 and helped reelect in 1872. Higher rebels enter the senate in 1870, by the way, for historians of the constitution, they can be u. S. Senators the constitution says, you have to have been a citizen of the United States for a certain number of years before you can be a u. S. Senator. So technically, he wasnt and hed only been a citizen since 1968 but no one questions is right to edge. Because everyone understands that the citizenship clause is retroactive so he was a citizen by his birth in the United States. The first africanamerican in the National Legislature enters the senate by six in the house, the following year. There more than 15 African Americans who serve in congress before 1890, there are two in the senate when branch bruce followed rebels. There is a significant and huge number of black state legislators, state officeholders, sheriffs, court county clerks, city councilmembers, this is a revolution of politics, and revolution in law. In the meantime, in the north, the same revolution is taking place for example, in 1880s, Benjamin Arnett, is elected in Greene County, which is in what state . Ohio. As well as Benjamin Arnett is not for the black district, Greene County is an overwhelmingly white county, they sent Benjamin Arnett to the Ohio Legislature in 1880s, he sponsors the arnett bill, which repeals all race determination in ohio in terms of law at the time. My colleagues Randy Kennedy will shortly talk about the 1875 Civil Rights Act and the civil rights cases of 1883 i want to make one prelude to that 1883 decision in the civil rights case, is one of the keys to the Supreme Court destroying reconstruction by declaring that the 75 act is unconstitutional. And that the 75 act, was what with we would today and equal accommodations act. Saying you cannot discriminate in public accommodations, such as hotels, theaters, streetcars, restaurants etc. After that act is overturned by the court, virtually every northern, midwestern and and Western State passes its own equal accommodation act. Essentially doing it state law what the Supreme Court says it cannot. The federal government says it cannot do at the federal level. That means, when we get to the decisions like where the court says while segregation is fine. We have to understand, that the court is not implementing the will of the people of the United States. Because the states that contained the majority of the population in the country have in fact passed laws, to say that we are opposed to segregation, furthermore, if you take this analysis which is often given by some scholars as well or public opinion, obviously at not following the majority of the people of South Carolina who are black, but the majority of people in mississippi who are black either that or not in favor of the segregation laws. So this theory that the court is simply doing what it must do to placate the majority of the country is in fact, nonsense. The court is doing what it is doing because the court is doing what it wants to do. And that is what we need to understand. Just as iowa integrates its schools, in 1866, the michigan Supreme Court refuses to impose , the socalled one drop rule. That on whether or not someone is black when it comes to a Voting Rights case. In peoples of the versus dean, dean is prosecuted for voting, the democratic rescued or doesnt like the idea that blacks are voting in detroit because detroit is a democratic city, and the blacks are more likely to vote republican. Prosecute for illegally voting he is gets overturned, no definition on what it means to be black in this case, so our definition will be if you are half white and you are not black and therefore you can vote. Again this is as close as they can go, given the constitutional provisions in michigan, but it is a important step forward. By the way ohio, and lamented the same role in the 1850s. So, when we think about what is going on in reconstruction at the Northern State level and at the congressional level, it is very different than what the Supreme Court is going to do. The michigan Supreme Court, notes that there is a distinction between who would be classed as white or not wait. And that no one in michigan had ever quote advanced the absurd notion that predominance of mixed blood on one side or another, was any given standard and has the artist hearing on the fitness or unfitness process this is 1866, part of a huge thing. In 1871 michigan will legislature prohibits segregated school, 1973, the year that the Supreme Court upholds a prosecution for an interracial marriage in alabama the state of michigan repeals his last remaining restriction on brace religions that have interracial marriages so we have the country going into directions, most Northern States accepting the outcome. This does not mean there is a racial nirvana, in the north. That does not mean, that bigotry is disappeared. But it does mean, at the formal level, Northern States, even states which are notoriously racist, like indiana and illinois, states that are the last two states to restrict black migration into the states, even those states are passing Civil Rights Acts. 718 84, ohio, new jersey, minnesota passed to Civil Rights Acts in response to the civil rights decision in 1883. In 1885, michigan, indiana, illinois and nebraska past laws, in 1887 pennsylvania passes such a long, by the way, kansas had done so in 1874, before 1875 Civil Rights Act had even been passed. So, if we only looked at the history of that, we would think, that reconstruction, is going to be a success. Because its excepted in congress, in the Northern State levels, its a success at the political level. But of course this does not happen. One of the reason it does not happen, is because the north runs out of energy, the democrats are resurgence taking one house of congress towards the end of reconstruction. Because many northerners, are not happy with the result, and political elections as we learned yesterday are always very close. And the other reason is, the United States as a nation, does not have the stomach to have a real reconstruction, we demobilize the army much too quickly, by the way we have learned from this experience after world war ii. We do not demobilize the army after world war ii. We do not say oh, we defeated germany, and now we will have the acts nazi running the country again we have a serious reconstruction in germany, a serious reconstruction in japan, and that i think is the function of the fact that there were policymakers who had studied history in college and knew that maybe we have to do Something Better this time but we do not do it its a different world, one could make the argument that the dream that you couldve kept the army in the south for 10 years is too hard to realize because, you could not have made it happen i realize there are soldiers in the south im talking about a serious military reconstruction. It doesnt happen, the other reason it does not is because, the country does not have the stomach for trials, treason trials, Jefferson Davis and is arrested for treason, he sits in island for a year, and hes let go. Even though, confederate troops, had committed war crimes, by the definition of war crimes of the time. For example, flattering black soldiers who were surrendering, selling captured black soldiers into slavery, when robert e lee, marches into pennsylvania, even as he is scampering back to virginia having had half his army destroyed. He takes time to capture free blacks in pennsylvania and drag them back to the south and sell them as slaves. When he invaded maryland he did the same thing for free blacks in maryland remember maryland as a slave state but half the black people in maryland are free by the time of the war. So the south is committing, war crimes but we dont prosecute anybody, except captain works. Or andersonville. In addition, theres the Supreme Court and what i wanted you, is give you a very quick Supreme Court history. I dont want to go into the details of cases, if anybody wants i am happy to give you suggestions, i suppose i would say the first place to start is a book called the march of liberty which is a twovolume constitutional history of the United States, i am the co author of that book so that would be shameless self promotion and i would not want anybody to accuse me of that. I will also add jane by the way, my book supreme justice is out with Harvard University press. I again i am shameless. Here are ways with which the Supreme Court undermines freedom. First, it prevents the punishment and the disfranchisement of southerners for their treasonous behavior, 718 67, the court hears two cases, cummings versus missouri , in which former confederate sympathizers had been prohibited from either voting, or in the case of garland practicing law under what is known as a test oath. That said if you cannot swear that you are loyal, you cannot vote, or be part of the political process. The Supreme Court says congress has no power to pass this law. The result is of course, very early on, former confederates are back in the political process in a very strong way. It prevents the federal government from protecting blacks from southern violence. And then in 1872, and u. S. Versus cruikshank in 1876 and in the United States harrison 1883, the court eviscerates federal laws, that were designed , to allow the federal government to protect the newly made citizens from southern white violence, cruikshanks is the most famous example, where a prox medley 100 black people are killed at a political rally. In louisiana, nothing is done about it. Finally, in williams versus mississippi, in 1988, the court rules, it is not discriminatory for mississippi to never have blacks on criminal jury trials. As jurors because the court says, the blacks are not allowed to vote, not because theyre black, not because her former slave owners but because they are all illiterate and ignorant therefore it is proper to keep them off the juries. To keep them off the voting rolls, once they are off the voting rolls there off the jury pool. So the court is simply complicit us with this rise of racism in the south, remember, at the same time, in Northern States blacks are voters, their officeholders, and serving on juries. So the majority of the nation, this ruling is not going to have any affect, where the majority of africanamericans were 90 of africanamericans live, this has a profound effect. The court undermines the privilege of immunity caused by the 14th amendment, the slaughterhouse cases of course the privilege of immunities cause were designed to force the southern state, to accept the bill of rights, and apply it to their own citizens and force Northern States to do the same. The notion wise, you can have political equality if you dont have free speech. You can have political equality if you dont have a jury trials. If you dont have due process of law. The court says no, thats not what privileges and human and immunities of citizenship means. Basically the court, nine very smart justices, cannot define what the privilege will be of the citizens, so they say southern, blacks are not protected from the white majority that is now beginning to oppress them. It prevents the government from a protecting blacks civil rights in the civil rights cases. Thats in 1883, i wont go into them because randy is going to talk about them. Much later in detail. It protects or prevents the federal government from protecting the black vote. In the United States, we have a situation where a black has offered to pay the poll tax gone to the clerk, said heres my poll tax i can vote in the clerk says i dont want to take your money because you are black. Then he shows up to vote, he is denied the road the right to vote and the court says is not being denied the right to vote because hes black is being denied because he didnt pay his poll tax. Only by the most absurd, technical analysis, can you end up in this situation. In dissent justice word is from new york, cites two major fugitive slave cases, craig versus pennsylvania for the principal that before the war, congress had the power to protect the rights of southern white, the grant people of the north and bring them back to the south so why cant the government now protect the rights of blacks in the south to vote . He says the legal theories are identical, but of course, everything has changed and now, they are not going to give to blacks what the Supreme Court had been willing to give to white slave owners. Again, reconstruction is being destroyed, case, by case, ship by ship, argument by argument. It prevents the southern for protecting equality in the southern states, through the Commerce Clause. This is interesting because of course as we know, the Commerce Clause regulates commerce between states. The court, it is often said that if a state cannot pass a law with interferes with interstate commerce, simply for the benefit of the state. To use a simple example. Indiana cannot pass a law which says if you drive a truck you are you have to get indiana plates when you drive through indiana, or you have to get a indiana drivers license. That would interfere with interstate commerce. So, thats the kind of modern, simple dumb example. In louisiana, Louisiana Legislature passed a law that says that steamboat, stagecoaches and railroads cannot have segregated seating. Paul who is a ship captain segregates madame to cure to is a africanamerican woman of oath both french and african in ancestry louisiana, does not let her sit where she had been sitting, where she had paid for her seats. The Supreme Court court says the louisiana law is unconstitutional because it will interfere with interstate commerce because what it means is, when a ship comes into louisiana, from tennessee, or from arkansas on, goes down the river they will have to rearrange all the passengers. Because they have segregated seating on the ship, now they have to intervene. However, this is where it gets to be weird. Unless of course you realize that the illegal theory of the court is not consistent legal theory but consistent racial oppression. In 1890, and louisville, the whale roads to prevent having to move passengers, when the railroad goes into mississippi the Louisville Railroad says look people get on the train in kentucky and we dont care where they said they said whatever they want, when we get to mississippi we have to move everyone around because thats mississippi segregation law, the court says thats okay, that does not interfere with interstate commerce. See only interest interfere with interstate commerce if you make a ship or railroad in a great but if you make them segregate, that somehow is not interfering with interstate commerce. This of course is the set up for ferguson, which blesses several, separate for it but at the time, its not important to the case because the real case in all of this, is a one randy will be talking about in the civil rights cases. That is the one, were African Americans realize we are doomed by this Supreme Court. That in 1883 by 1896, the game is mostly over. Even with the game mostly over, there are still those persistent people in the south and north that believe in equality. One of them, of precision naysayers in the south, where the trustees in kentucky, a beret of college, it had been an antislavery college in kentucky, quietly before the war. After the war rea college is integrated. Kentucky, segregate its Public Schools fine, they can do that, court says thats okay. Kentucky segregated university. Thats fine. And of course, as we know, kentucky does not integrate its basketball team, until what is now university of texas el paso in those days the texas school of mines, defeats them in a national championship, where they have a team half of the team is black players. Thats what it takes for kentucky, to finally discover well maybe integration wouldnt be such a bad thing. But kentucky then goes on, in the early 20th century to pass a law saying that private schools cannot be integrated. And it prosecutes beret a college for having integrated schools. The h case reaches the court in 1808. Before getting to that case i want to Say Something about a famous case that reaches the court in 1905. In 1905, the court hears a case called lochner versus new york. A very famous case. It involves whether new york, can regulate the hours of acres for health and safety reasons. And a core and a dramatic 5for decisions at the new york laws unconstitutional, because the bakers in new york have the constitutional right, a right of contract to work for as many hours as they choose. The bakery owners have a constitutional right to offer work to bakers who want to work more by the way, the limit was 60 hours a week. And the court said, if the baker wants to work 65 hours a week, that baker should have that right, and owner of the bakery should have the right to hire them for 65 hours a week. Thats the constitutional right of contract but three years later, when beret a college says, we should have the constitutional right to contract with black and white students to take courses at our school, and African Americans, and white americans should have the right to contract with beret a college to go to an integrated school. Suddenly, the court has forgotten lochner. And says no, the state of kentucky as a right has a right to regulate race really relation as it wants. What we say or what we see from the end of the civil war, until the eve of the election of well drove wilson, what the pride what the court does is destroy reconstruction, one case at a time, one little piece at a time, there are some victories, the court does uphold the bands on certain kinds of labor, because they decide that peonage is in fact a violation, the court does require that there cannot be laws prohibiting blacks serving on jury which leads mississippi to get creative and stay well, first build the franchise and we can kick you off the juries because then you are not a voter in the court buys it. There are some victories its not an entire suite. In the end and eve of world war i, america is a thoroughly segregated place. And it is us the early segregated place in the south. Is a thoroughly segregated in the south because the court, has gone along with this, and the question is why . I have two answers for that, and then i will be out of time. The first answer is many of the judges on the court, especially in the years immediately after the war, simply could not wrap their head around the constitutional revolution of 1865 to 1870. They could not understand, what the 14th amendment was about, they were not thrilled with the 13th amendment. Some of them had been not antislavery, some were put on the court because in the case of president lincoln he was not concerned about the court, he had bigger things to worry about. So he puts justice mirror on, the former democrat, a justice who had been sympathetic to slaveholding, before and he becomes a republican, the westerners go to lincoln and said we need a westerner on the court, he says you want . He says they say miller from iowa is a good guy so they put miller in the court, without asking miller what are your views on slavery and race . They put david davis on the court his old friend from illinois. When i attended harvard law school, one of the few important lessons i learned was, the definition of a federal judge is a lawyer whom is a senator, the definition of a Supreme Court justice was a lawyer who knew a guy who became president. So davis becomes justice, davis is a lifelong democrat, he has no sympathy for emancipation, or for black rights. In addition to this, the people who get to be put on the court, in this period, tend to be disconnected from politics. In important ways. They have not lived in a world with a met africanamericans, they lived in a world where they have gone to segregated schools themselves, they live in an all white world, they have no sympathy or understanding for africanamericans. There is of course one exception to this right . Justice John Marshall holland who had been a slave owner before the civil war. He is a voice of civil rights. That because he understands racism, he understands segregation, he understands africanamericans are just as entitled to constitutional rights, as everybody else. But, he is alone a voice sometimes he gets 23 justices to join him for this entire period. It will only be, after the beginning of world war i, that we began to get what will become by the 1940s, and 50s, the second reconstruction of the constitutional law. Thank you very much. [ clapping ] thank you very much, i am pleased to be here, and i would like to express my gratitude to the United Capital historical society. Its a wonderful gathering, a wonderful contribution, to public education. I am going to focus our attention for a few minutes, on the longer reach of the civil rights cases. First, the civil rights case, the civil rights case were set up cases decided in 1883, in which the Supreme Court of the United States, invalidated, very important part of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. So, in a minute i will turn to the case and we will walk through the theory, by which the Supreme Court invalidated the public accommodation sections, of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. First, a few words about the act of set 1875. It was a act that had a long gestation. It was before congress for five years before it was passed. The act was the brainchild, of senator child charles ebner. Sumner. When i hear the name Charles Sumner a smile comes to my face. I pass a monument of him every day i do pass one where i teach its Charles Sumner sitting down. Charles sumner was one of the greats of the United States senate. In fact, i think a strong argument, could be made, that there has never been a senator of the United States, who was more attuned to the struggle for Racial Justice, then Charles Sumner. He was a lawyer in massachusetts, he was antislavery all his life. Not only was he antislavery, he was also antiracist. Often times people can conflate the two but they ought not be. Some people are antislavery but who would thoroughly were racist still. Charles sumner was thoroughly gala terrien. He was the lawyer, who represented the plaintiffs in the nations first School Desegregation case, roberts versus the city of boston. Throughout his life, he was a friend, to black attorneys, in fact he moved to for the admission of the first black attorney, who practiced before the Supreme Court of the United States. He passed legislation, and proposed legislation during the civil war. That was to open up federal court to testimony. From africanamerican. At the end of his life, he proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The act that he proposed actually reached further than the act that was actually passed. The act that he proposed, would have prohibited Racial Discrimination in schools, in cemeteries, and this is an interesting one in churches. Those three parts of the act, were rescinded, and the congressional struggle. The act that was passed, provided as follows. This is section 1 of the act. That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be entitled to a full and equal enjoyment, of the accommodations, advantages, civil tees and privileges within public conveyances on land or water, theaters, or other places of public amusement. That, was the central part of the act that leads to the civil rights cases. One more thing, about the Civil Rights Act of 1875 has to do with a very important thing. The mechanism for enforcement. The act of 1875, had a Civil Enforcement provision so that if you were aggrieved, if you were excluded lets say from a hotel or restaurant, or theater, you could sue the person who excluded you, you could see that person civilly, if you prevailed you would get or you would be entitled to damages. Thats from the person who did that to you. So civil provision. But, it also had a criminal provision. So that if you felt your self to be aggrieved, if you felt yourself to be discriminated against on the basis of race, you could bring the case, to federal officials, u. S. Attorneys in your location. That party would be obligated to bring a criminal action. If, the Government Official prevailed, there would be a conviction, a misdemeanor, the person that would have been convicted of this misdemeanor would have to pay the government 500, and there was a prison term. Not less than 30 days, not more than one year. There was quite a bite, to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Now, the civil rights cases, the act was enforced in 1875 in 1883. But then in 1883, the Supreme Court of the United States finally, finally determined to resolve constitutional issues, that swirled around the question of validity of the act. Now, the called the civil rights cases, the site cases, its interesting to note where these cases came from. They tell us something about the situation in 1883. They came from all over the United States. There was a kansas case, california case, a missouri case, a new york case, and a tennessee case. So, this was a national issue. It involved two of the cases that involve the hotels, of africanamericans who sought to check into a hotel and were excluded, too involved theaters, black people who wanted to go to a theater, and were excluded, and then one involved a railroad car. A black lady, had booked passage in the ladies section of a railroad car, and she was excluded, and she sought to invoke the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to address her exclusion. Those are the five cases that became the civil rights cases. What did the Supreme Court do . Did the Supreme Court, in an 8 1 opinion, invalidated the public accommodations provision of the act of 1875. What was their thinking . Their thinking first, they really focused on two constitutional provisions. That might have authorized the act of 1875 they focused on the 13th amendment and the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was really the constitutional provision that they spoke about the most. What they said was as follows lets take a look at the 14th amendment. The first section of the 14th amendment, provides or says that no state shall deprive any person, of privileges and immunities, due process, equal protection of the law. What the court focused on, was the phrase and term no state. No state shall deprive any person. Of these rights. Now, what does the civil right of 1875 say . The act of 1875, says, discrimination, whatever the source discrimination with respect to places of up public accommodation Racial Discrimination, are prohibited. The law does not talk about the state, the law says if you have a restaurant, hotel, privately owned railroad, you cannot discriminate. The Supreme Court says hold it. The 14th amendment says that states are prohibited from depriving people of these rights. It doesnt say anything about private individuals. All of the 14th amendment does according to the Supreme Court is authorized congress, to pass appropriate legislation section 5 of the 14th amendment appropriate legislation, to effectuate section 1 of the 14th amendment. It says, this is not appropriate legislation because, section 1 of the 14th amendment only speaks of terms of state deprivation. Not private deprivation. The court elaborates more and says listen, when the states deprives someone, of a right, thats one thing. When private individuals, prevent somebody from going to a restaurant, that is not actually depriving them of their right to. That is depriving them of the enjoyment of their right oh, i see you people sort of raised eyebrows and rolling their eyeballs. Raised eyebrows. Saying you know that seems artificial. That seems legalese, in a way that seems evasive. That is a way that Justin Justice harlem thought and that is basically the theory with respect to the 14th amendment analysis of the Supreme Court of the United States. By the way, for those who were rolling their eyes and saying gosh thats ridiculous, that is the law under which we live today. So when we talk about this case, dont get the impression i am talking about some long, bold case that has no relevance to us. The civil rights cases are good law. This is our constitution that we currently live under. If you think, as many do, that this case involves a sabotage of reconstruction, a sabotage of the 13th and 14th amendments, if you think that, as professor and professor finkelman things that you must also think, we currently live under a constitutional regime. It has sabotaged the effort to bring the former slaves out of slavery, and to make all persons regardless of race, citizens of the United States. With all that that should entail. Let me talk about the 14th amendment aspect. This is the Supreme Court, majority in the civil rights cases, focused on the 13th amendment, they didnt spend a lot of time on the 13th amendment, but they said the government by the way the government defended the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in the government said, one source of justification, for the act of 1875 at 13th amendment, why . Because when people are prevented from writing on the railroads, or excluded or segregated on railroads, if they are excluded from a put the word segregation up to the side when there excluded from railroads, excluded from partaking in restaurants, hotels, other places of public amusement, if they are excluded in that way, the governments position was those are badges and incidents of slavery. Its not like people were just willynilly excluded, its not like Somebody Just said i dont like your last name, your last name is smith, people with last names of smith are excluded, thats not whats going on here. These people were being excluded because of their race. The governments position was we had racial slavery. Bondage has been gotten rid of think god. But there were other areas of subjugation. And they were related to bondage, and these should be viewed as incidents and badges of slavery, what should and how are in power the federal government to prohibit those actions what are the Supreme Court stated to that . They said it is quote running the slavery argument into the ground. Thats at the Supreme Court said. They gave the back of the hand to the 13th amendment they said listen, being excluded from a theater, what does that have to do with bondage . If you are impatient, as i think you should be, if you are impatient, with what the Supreme Court said in essence of the 13th amendment you should also be impatient, with the current state of federal constitutional law now. To the extent that the Supreme Court really cabins 13th amendment and narrows it. It has not changed. That to is the lot which we live. One last thing about the Supreme Courts opinion. Its not a holding, its a statement. It is a important statement. The Supreme Court said the Supreme Court the end of its opinion. I think its a statement we are at the point that i try to make already. This case is very contemporary it is part of our law. And our ongoing struggle. Listen to this. Quote, when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of the legislation has taken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage of the progress of his elevation, and he takes the rant of a near citizen, and ceases to be, the special, favorite of the lauded. 1883. 1883. The great mass of African Americans in 1883. In 1883 can remember bondage. Slavery is close in 1883. And even then the spector africanamericans seeking to be the special favorite of the laws. Sound familiar . It ought to. Now, there was a dissent. Professor finkelman mentioned that suggested that john marshal harlon was the one justice who expressed a keen attentiveness to Racial Justice, largely correct. I wouldnt want to go overboard in celebrating Justice Harlon. In question and answer, maybe we can get into that a little bit. But Justice Harlon did dissent in the civil rights cases, and let me sort of walk through why what was the theory of his dissent. First, 14th amendment. Justice harlon responded to his colleagues by saying there is state action here. You demand state action. You have said that you, the Supreme Court has said that the federal government, the congress is only empowered to pass corrective legislation, legislation that corrects malfeasance on the part of the state. Justice harlan says there is state action here. Individuals wielding power under state authority for the public benefit, thats state action. If you have a railroad, if you have a railroad, the states involved in that. Railroads dont just built. Youve got to get licensing. The state has to help out a railroad in various ways. This goes for most commercial ventures, hotels, restaurants. States involved in all of that, and by the way, what are these things doing . Theyre not just theyre not throwing a cocktail party. They are making they are offering goods, facilities, services to the public, so harlan says even if i were to accept your premises court majority, i think under your own ground rules you could say that there is state action here. Its not just private action. With respect to the 13th amendment, harlan says with respect to slavery, and again, professor finkelman did note that harlan was, had been a slave owner, he says these diskr discriminations are Racial Discriminations. The United States did not just have slavery in the abstract, it had a particular sort of slavery. It had racial slavery, and then to press his point a bit more with respect to the 13th amendment, he said, listen, before the 14th amendment was passed the federal government passed a civil rights law, the nations First Federal civil rights law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. What did the Civil Rights Act of 1866 do . The Civil Rights Act of 1866 said that all persons in the United States would have the same rights as white people to int enter into contracts, own property, testify in court, the classic civil rights. He said the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed pursuant to the 13th amendment. Well, you might say what is being able to contract . What is being able to testify . What is being able to own property have to do with bondage . Clearly the people who passed the act of 1866 thought that it had a lot to do with racial slavery. Harlan went beyond simply answering his colleagues, however. He also set forth a theory that in my view is a perfectly fine theory today and that has never gotten the attention that it ought to receive. His theory was that the 14th amendment created something new in the United States. It created citizenship, and that citizenship should have various entailments including the idea that citizens of the United States of america are entitled to exemption from Racial Discrimination. That was his theory. Finally, two final points from harlans dissent, and its a great dissent, its a great dissent. Harlan pointed out and this is a point that was made especially by black commentators of the period. If you read for instance, Frederick Douglasss great speech when the civil rights cases were announced, he gave a speech not far from here, right here in washington, d. C. , Frederick Douglass gave a great speech in which he said, look at this. Before the civil war, before the civil war when congress pulled out all the stops to provide federal power in favor of slave owners trying to recapture their human property, what did the Supreme Court do . The Supreme Court said, well, implied rights, of course it makes sense to give federal backing to the authority of slave owners trying to recapture their property, implied rights. Supreme court very solicitous of the sentiments and the interests of the slave power, and then Frederick Douglass said but look at us now after the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments had been passed. Now what is the Supreme Court doing . Now the Supreme Court is pulling out all the stops to put limits on federal power. Harlan made that same point, and then harlan at the end of his opinion answered the Supreme Courts dig about the special fay favorites of the law, and this is what he said. It is, i submit, scarcely just to say that the colored race has been the special favorite of the laws. What the nation through congress has sought to accomplish in reference to that race is what had already been done in every state in the union for the white race to secure and protect rights belonging to them as free men and citizens, nothing more. The one underlying purpose of congressional legislation has been to enable the black race to take the rank of mere citizens. Well, the title of my talk was the long reach of the civil rights cases. They did, in fact, have a long reach. The act of 1875 was the last federal law in aid of Racial Justice in the 19th century. There was not another civil rights, federal civil rights law until 1957. If we move the clock forward 60 years, what do we see . If we move the clock forward 60 years, we see that the sorts of discriminations that were at issue in the civil rights cases are still very much at issue. Had there been change, lets just take the lets take lets go up to 1960, 1960. Now, just looking around here for people in this room, 1960 is very near. When i talk to my students, i say 1960, they think that was when the dinosaur roamed. We know better. 1960 was just like that. In 1960 with respect to public accommodations, there were many places in the United States that had laws prohibiting Racial Discrimination in places of public accommodation. Many states prohibited that sort of Racial Discrimination. Did all states prohibit Racial Discrimination in places of public accommodation . The answer is no, and here i can go autobiographical because now its my lifetime. So in my lifetime, 1960, i clearly remember riding on big holidays from washington, d. C. , which is where i grew up, to columbia, South Carolina, where i was born, and on those drives i was very young, i just thought it was the case that my mother just liked putting together, you know, baskets of food making sure that there was lots of soda. I just thought, well, you know, its party time. This is just she just wanted to do this. I thought that my father was simply being, you know, just regularly vigilant when he made sure that the car was in good working order before making that ride. It was only later that i learned that that eighthour drive from washington, d. C. To columbia, South Carolina, was a drive which to my participanents was perilous drive. It was a drive in which they did not know where they would be able to go to the bathroom. They knew that they wouldnt be able to, you know they didnt want to take any chances about eating, drinking. They wanted to create a car in such a way, they wanted to make the car a place where we were completely selfsufficient so we could cut down on any unnecessary interaction with the outside world. As a child i did not know that. Later i knew that, and that was because Racial Discrimination was rife, and there was, again, in the states that we were traveling through, virginia, north carolina, South Carolina, there werent any laws prohib prohibiting Racial Discrimination in places of public accommodation. Folks got tired of that, said there ought to be a law. You remember many people in here will remember the sitins. Many people in here will remember the childrens crusade in birmingham, alabama. There ought to be a law. Finally, belatedly, john f. Kennedy said, yeah, lets pass a law. There was a lot of controversy around title 2 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act under which we live, that prohibits Racial Discrimination in places of public accommodation, and one of the reasons why there was so much controversy around it was because of the civil rights cases. Question, was there constitutional warrant, was there Constitutional Authority for congress to pass a law prohibiting this sort of Racial Discrimination . That was a big issue. The kennedy administration, the Johnson Administration responded to that question by saying lets pass a law prohibiting Racial Discrimination in places of public accommodation, but lets not base it primarily on the 14th amendment. Lets forget about the 14th amendment. Why do we need to forget about the 14th amendment . Because of the civil rights cases. Instead, lets pass the law invoking the Commerce Clause. In other words,le lets not say that people in the United States a are entitled to public accommodation free of racial impediment because thats what decency requires, that thats what human rights requires, that that is in keeping wl ethith th ethos of american democracy, lets not say that. Lets say it will be good for the Gross National product if people drink more cocacola and eat more hamburgers. That is the basis on which title 2 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. That is the basis of the federal law on which we currently depend. Let me conclude with three quick points, one, why does this matter . I think its useful to know everything there is to know about our world and anything that has happened. I think, frankly, that knowledge for knowledge sake is a perfectly good justification. If that was all there was to it, fine. I think thats a perfectly fine reason for people to do research, for people to talk, for people to write. That in and of itself, it seems to me, is perfectly fine. Point one. Point two, as ive emphasized throughout this my remarks, there is an instrumental reason for this knowledge. This is our law. If you are critical of the civil rights cases, that means you are critical of the current state of american law. I think you ought to be critical of the current state of american law, which brings me to my third point, which is the pal of redemption, the pall that settled on the United States in the aftermath of reconstruction, the destruction of reconstruction, and it was destroy destroyed, that created a shadow that is still very much over us. All of the struggles of reconstruction are struggles that face us today, and in the effort to better address what we now face, you cannot be better armed than to be attentive to what happened in the reconstruction era and afterwards. Thank you very much. [ applause ] i was wondering if you could expound a little bit more on Justice Harlan and your views of his reputation . Sure. Can you hear me now . Yeah. First, i want to really salute Justice Harlan. Were all captives of our socialization, that he changed so dramatically in his life really makes me honor him. So i think very well of harlan, but why did i why did i throw in that asterisk . Well, it has to do with things like this. In his most famous dissent in plessi versus ferguson, harlan distinguishes two different peoples of color. He he really was a champion to a large degree of africanamericans, and one of the things that affected him very deeply was the presence of africanamerican soldiers. That mattered a lot to him. Basically he said, you know, listen, africanamericans helped the United States remain the United States and lets not forget that. He compared the treatment of blacks with the treatment of people from china, and one of the reasons why he was especially critical of the treatment of blacks, he says, listen, i mean, on railroads in louisiana people from china can ride with white people, but blacks cant . That shows how crazy this is. But he was not very attentive to the rights of people from china. In a number of cases, i mean, again, remember, the United States of america didnt just didnt just become a multiracial society. There have always been groups, various groups. Its not just blacks. Its not just whites, you know, native americans, people from asia, and harlan was actually not very good with respect to other peoples of color. Even with respect to the black white issue, in in fact the very year that the civil rights cases were decided, 1883, there was a case decided back professor finkelman made reference to it, pace versus alabama, the issue in pace versus alabama was whether the state of alabama could punish interracial fornication more harshly than intraracial fornication, and the Supreme Court in an unanimous opinion said, oh, no problem with that. After all, white people are being treated just the same as black people, you know. If youre engaged in interracial fornication, both parties are being punished more harshly. Whats the big deal . That essentially was the same logic as plessi versus ferguson. It was a unanimous Supreme Court decision. Harlan did not dissent. I love giving that case out. My students loved getting the case because it took all of one paragraph for the Supreme Court to uphold the alabama statute, so harlan had a mixed record, but overall again, i give that as an asterisk overall, harlan distinguished himself on this court as a forward looking person who did give voice to the highest aspirations of the reconstruction experiment. Yes. I have one question for professor finkelman. Garrisons constitution, the covena covenant, how it was made appears in the National Archives in the prologue quarterly. Could you lift your microphone up . Oh, yes. That article is cited in gordon versus the National Archives in records administration. It was to enjoin the office of the federal register from certifying certificates of vote from states that awarded electors on a winner take all basis that does not have a winner take all stature, winner take all, you know, code, and in the absence of that, it argued that it had awarded its electors the fairest allocation of electors proportionally. It was in violation of the second reduction clause of the 14th amendment. My question to you is could you expound on how an Electoral College origins as it fell on the basis of representation has been biased towards certain segments, elements for society in its application . And for okay. For randall the question is the mr. Gordon raises some weighty issues having to do with the consequences of results of an electoral system where minority and minority number of votes are not recognized. That is when theres a winner take all system, that is a quote from district judge henry h. Kennedy jr. Youre not related to him . Its my brother. Okay. Well, thats in gordon versus the house of representatives, and it was to enjoin the clerk of the house from recognizing representatives from states that award the electors on a winner take all basis that does not have a winner take all code. In absence of a winner take all statute, it violations the penalty of the second section of the 14th amendment. So my question to you is why is that civil rights litigants have been avoiding and do not address the potent remedy in the second section of the 14th amendment in addressing gerrymandering as an issue . I submit that partisan abridgment is a more potent argument for the second section than equal protection jurisprudence. Okay. So i think the only real answer to this is for the president of the Capitol Historical Society and chuck and lauren to plan a conference next year on voting and electoral representation because the question you ask is like a whole other paper and a whole other conference. But having said that, i would just make one point. The Electoral College is introduced in the Constitutional Convention as a way of figuring out how to count slaves for the purpose of electing the president when slaves cannot vote. So at the Constitutional Convention, james madison, the father of the constitution, says that the most appropriate thing would be for the people of the country to elect the president , and then he says there are go problems with that. The first problem is that Voting Rights differ from state to state, but that would have been easy to accomplish. You could have simply said if a state chooses to have to disfranchise some of its population, then it loses out on president ial elections, and that might encourage states to expand their franchise. To give you an example, new jersey allowed women to vote. No other state did. If youd had a popular election of the president , all the rest of the states would have said hey, new jerseys got a good idea. We want women as well as men to vote. Massachusetts allowed free blacks to vote, and so perhaps, you know, virginia would have said we ought to let free blacks vote, too, because that will give us more votes. The other problem, which was not for which there was no simple solution is madison notes that if you have a direct election of the presidency, of the president , the slaves will not be factored into the election, and so when you have a country where there are 700,000 people who were held as slaves and where the size of a states population is affected by this so that virginia has the largest population, but if you only counted freeway people, pennsylvanias bigger. North carolina is the Third Largest state, but it drops to fifth if you dont count if you dont count slaves, so what madison says is that if we elect a president on the basis of the popular vote, essentially we southerners arent going to be able to elect people because the northerners will out vote us because they let men vote without regard to race and with the exception of north carolina, we dont and furthermore, we have all these slaves who as noncitizens obviously cant vote. So instead what the convention does is to create the Electoral College and electors are based on the number of representatives in congress and the number of representatives in congress are based on the whole number of free people and 3 5 of all other persons and of course those other persons are slaves. So that in 1800, Thomas Jefferson would not have been elected president if, in fact, there had not been an Electoral College because the free voters in the north would have outvoted the free voters in the south, simil. Similarly, in 1824 without the Electoral College, it is possible that john adams would have won a popular vote. We dont know because we dont have all the votes for 1824, but the point is that the Electoral College is created to allow the south to gain political power in the president ial election because of slavery. While we do not have slavery, and we do not have a 3 5 clause anymore, we are still saddled with this weird system that has historically allowed people to be elected president who lost the popular vote, and as far as i know, theres no other election in the United States where thats the case. Im sure when mayor campbell ran to be mayor, she didnt say, oh, the other guy should win because he got fewer votes than i did. Thats not how it works except in the president ial election. Thats as far as ill go because anything else would take weeks. There was a lot in your question, just a couple of points. Ill start with and here i think there might be some distance between professor finkelman and myself. I think that we tend to celebrate our constitution far too much, both the constitution of 1787 and the second constitutional regime, the reconstruction amendments, and the fact of the matter is that there was a fight over the 13th amendment, a fight over the 14th amendment, a fight over the 15th amendment. They were all matters of compromise. They have good points to them. They have bad points to them. I dont think im not satisfied with the 13th amendment. Im not satisfied with the 14th amendment. Im not satisfied with the 15th amendment. Obviously my comments indicate that im very critical of the Supreme Court of the United States and the way it has handled those amendments but the Supreme Court of the United States is not the only culprit. The framers of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, they had their own problems. The society that gave us the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were thoroughly racist, a thoroughly racist society. It should not be any it should not be surprising that the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments would be limited. It would be extraordinary were that not the case. Now, to go to your question about the 14th amendment, and particularly the second section, the section having to do with voting, a couple of points. One, it is a section of the constitution that gets very little attention. Its hardly mentioned in constitutional law classes. I took constitutional law, no mention at all to that section of the 14th amendment. 14th amendment, by the way, is a very long amendment. There are lots of parts of the 14th amendment that people in law schools typically dont talk about, and this is one of them. If your answer if your question is why has by the way, what does that portion of the 14th amendment say . That portion of the 14th amendment says the following a state that a state loses congressional representation to the extent that the state prevents a certain portion of it population from voting. That part of the 14th amendment basically said we will allow you to exclude people from voting. We will allow you to exclude blacks from voting. Its just that youll have to pay a political cost for it. Thats what the 14th amendment said, and by the way, the 14th amendment also said in that same provision, the following. This pertains to men. This section of the 14th amendment was the first time in the history of the United States constitution that a gender line was drawn, and it caused really hard feelings because there were feminists who said to people like, for instance, Frederick Douglass, hey, i know good and well youre not going to go along with this 14th amendment that excludes women. Frederick douglass went along with the 14th amendment, and it caused really hard feelings. The 14th amendment is deeply flawed, in other words, so by the way, is the 15th amendment. There were various proposals you asked about voting there were various proposals in 1870. The 15th amendment under which we live was the narrowest. Why didnt the why didnt the Congress Just pass a law saying, well, you know, if youre an adult you have a right to vote. They didnt say that. They said you have a right to vote in so and you have a right to vote actually, they dont even say you have a right to vote. What they say is states cannot exclude you from voting on a racial basis. They dont say you have a right to vote. They say states prohibit states from excludeing people. Well, you dont have to be a Rocket Scientist to understand how you can get around that. There were people in 1870 who said, well, hold it. Just suppose a state imposes a literacy test. Remember this is 1870. Black people had only been freed from slavery for five years, e just suppose you have a literacy test. Just suppose you have a property test. You could easily disenfranchise people if you wanted to, and that was stated, but for other reasons, for other reasons. Some having to do with just plain out racism. We got the 15th amendment that we are stuck with. So you know, i think, you know, one lesson to be drawn from our discussion of reconstruction and particularly the reconstruction of amendments is that our constitution has some good sides to it, really good sides. Im not trying to be facetious here. In certain ways the constitution of the United States is a remarkable document that has done some really good in the world. On the other hand, there are big parts of our constitutional regime that are rotten and that need to be amended. Can i just yeah, i just want to say im trying to figure out where you and i disagree here. Im not looking for disagreement. Yeah, and i just want to add one footnote, and then im going to see if theres somebody else who has a question to ask, and that would be this, that one of the deep flaws of the constitution, which in part was created to protect slavery, is the virtual impossibility of amending the constitution. In order to amend the constitution, you not only need twothirds of both houses of congress, but you need three quarters of the states. To understand how powerful this was, in 1860 there were 15 slave states. There were the 11 slave states that su seeded to create the confederacy, plus maryland, and delaware, kentucky and missouri. If those states still had slavery to this day, you could not amend the constitution to end slavery because you would need 45 free states, and although im not good at math, i do know that 15 and 45 would mean wed need a 60state union. We would have to subdivide california a number of times to get there, and so when you think about the structure of the constitution, the structure of the constitution prevents the National Government from ever touching slavery, and the southerners at the Constitutional Convention knew that. They came back to their state ratifying conventions, and they said this is a very good deal from us, for us. The National Government can never interfere with slavery, and for those scholars and there are a number who make this argument that the constitution didnt protect slavery or that the constitution was somehow had the seeds to end slavery, theres a recent book on it by a historian at princeton making this claim. I would simply say show me what clause of the constitution you would have used to end slavery, and the only clause that you have is the power of congress to make war on its enemies because nothing else is going to work. And that slavery required a 650,000 life down payment. Just a footnote, the 14th and 15th we have to if there are other questions, otherwise were done, right . In this age of the second jim crow as its been called, particularly like your opinion about whats happening in florida where the voting where the people voted to give the voting franchise to exfelons yet the Florida Legislature has progressing through its sessions a requirement that all court costs beexfelons, which is essentially i think, maybe a poll tax . I dont know about the and i havent kept up with the ins and outs of what happened in florida. I think it is in what is for me a rather dismal political season, that was a ray of light. I mean, you did have a state in which you have a referendum in which, you know, people who are not under the burden of disfranchisement vote to, you know, make voters of people who are frankly amongst our most ostracized members of society. You know, florida voted by referendum to enfranchise felons. Well, tell you the truth, i salute the people of florida, and for people who are looking for, you know, a nice research, it seems to me that would be i would like i dont know all there is to know about that. Im going to mark it down on one of my things to do, how did that come about . Because however it came about ought to be studied, and i would hope that it would be disseminated and there would be other people in other parts of the country who did similar things. One other point id like to make, you know, weve been talking a lot about federal developments. One of the things that professor finkelman, i think, really accentuated in his remarks was the importance of local developments, local developments, county developments, municipal developments, state developments. Obviously the federal government, the Supreme Court of the United States very important, but there are 50 Supreme Courts, and people ought to remember that. The congress of the United States very important, but then there are the state legislatures, and so there is a lot of you know, weve got lots of governments in the United States, which means that there are lots of levers to pull, lots of opportunity to try to make our democracy better. Im getting the signals from the powers who run this that our time is up. Thank you. [ applause ] this is a special edition of American History tv, a sample of the compelling history programs that air every weekend on American History tv, like lectures in history, american artifacts, real america, the civil war, oral histories, the presidency, and special event coverage about our nations history. Enjoy American History tv now and every weekend on cspan3. Cspans washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up thursday morning, American University education and sociology professor Cynthia Miller idris will be on to discuss the history of White Supremacy in the u. S. And as part of our podcast week, well talk with chris steyerwalt, cohost of the perino and steyerwalt ill tell you what. Watch cspans washington journal live at 7 30 eastern thursday morning and our final day of podcast week on washington journal starting at 9 00 a. M. Eastern on friday. Our guest is jennifer briney, host of congressional dish. Heres a look at whats live thursday, on cspan at 11 30 a. M. Eastern, britains secretary of state for International Trade talks about the future of u. S. u. K. Relations. Then at 1 45, well have live coverage of the iowa state fair where president ial candidate Steve Bullock and joe biden are speaking. Also later in the day, the Kato Institute and Heritage Foundation cohost a debate among interns about libertarianism versus conservati conservatism. Thats at 6 30 p. M. Eastern. And more live coverage on cspan2 in the morning as the center for strategic and International Studies looks at trade relations between the u. S. And china. Thats followed by a discussion on the future of ukraine with two former u. S. Diplomats, and later Foreign Policy experts discuss rising tensions between the u. S. And iran. Thats at 2 00 p. M. Eastern. Cspan has live coverage of the 2020 president ial candidates at the iowa state fair. Starting thursday at 1 45 p. M. Eastern with montana governor Steve Bullock followed by former Vice President joe biden. On friday, were live at 10 00 a. M. Eastern with former hud secretary Julian Castro and saturday were live at 10 00 a. M. Eastern with governor jay inslee, senator kamala harris, senator amy klobuchar, senator kirstjen gillibrand, jon hickenlooper, senator Elizabeth Warren and senator cory booker. Watch the 2020 president ial candidates live at the iowa state fair starting thursday on cspan. Watch anytime online at cspan. Org or listen live from wherever you are on the go using the free cspan radio app. Up next, a Clemson University history professor Vernon Burton on his experiences as an Expert Witness for plaintiffs in Voting Rights cases in South Carolina and texas. Professor burton also discussed the reconstruction era and Constitution Constitutional amendments that were intended to expand and protect Voting Rights. This talk was part of a symposium on reconstruction hosted by the u. S. Capitol historical society. For those of you who were not here at the beginning today, my name is Paul Finkelman. Im a historian and i also have the honor of being the president of grats college in greater philadelphia and i am the symposium organizer for this symposium on reconstruction. Were about to begin our next session, and our next session deals with issues of