Harvard lunar city where he studied under bernard bail and. He taught at harvard and university of michigan before joining the faculty at brown in 1969, a prolific author, professor would has won numerous awards. In 1970, his book the creation of the american republic, 1776 to 1787 won the bancroft prize and in 1993, his radical a station of the american resolution on the Pulitzer Prize for history. The american is a shove that german franklin was awarded that how it prized by the Boston Office club in 2005. His volume in the oxford history of the United States entitled empire of liberty, the history of the early republic, 1789 to 1815 was given the association of American Public are shores award for history and biography in 2009. The American History book prize by the New York Historical society and the society of the cincinnati history prize in 2010. Incidentally, professor would, be heard from your former student jack warren, executive director of the society last week. That same, year 2000, ten he was awarded the National Humanities medal by president obama. He is a fellow of the American Academy of arts and sciences and the american philosophical society, the countrys oldest learned society. He and his wife, louise, have three children, two of whom are professors and all of whom are involved in education so i know he will find a receptive audience here. Please join me in giving a warm Madison Foundation welcome to professor gordon wood. applause well, thank you, jeff for that very generous introduction. I am delighted to be here to talk to so many teachers. I always my wife was a teacher, english teacher, and i always thought that she did much more to further education than i ever did. Professors profess, teachers have to teach and theres a big difference. One Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860 on a platform of promoting, preventing the extension of slavery into the west, the Southern States felt their way of life was threatened and they succeeded from the union. Many states, including those of new england thought of succeeding from the union of various times in the antebellum period explaining the secession of the Southern States is not, it seems to, me a major historical problem. We can fairly easily account, i think, for why the Southern States succeeded. What is more difficult, what is more difficult to explain is why the Northern States cared. Why was the north willing to go to war to preserve the union . It was not because the north was spent on the abolition of slavery, at least not at first. Many northerners, of course, were opposed to slavery but what they were really, especially opposed to was the extension of slavery into the west. Northerners were opposed to the extension of slavery into the west because they knew that slavery would create a society incompatible with the one they wanted for their children and grandchildren who they presumed would settle in the west. But this was not the only reason why the north care enough for the union to engage in a long and bloody war that most northerners, that northerners gave up several hundred thousand lives for. To fully understand why the north cared enough to resist the secession of the Southern States, we have to go back to the revolution and the ideas and the ideals that came out of it. Lincolns words, which have been aptly called hid his sword, were crucial in sustaining the struggle to maintain the union. With his words, he reached back to the revolution to draw inspiration and understanding of what the civil war meant, meant for the nation and the world. He knew what the revolution was about and what it implied, not just for americans but for all of humanity. The United States, he said, was a new republican nation in a world of monarchies. A grand experiment in Self Government conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. The American People of 1860, said lincoln, deeply felt this moral principle of equality expressed in the declaration of independence, and this moral principle made them one of the founders. In lincolns word, an incredible image, as though they were blood of the blood and flesh of the flash of the man who wrote that declaration. This emphasis on liberty and equality, he said, is the he shifts manus metaphors the electric cord that links the hearts of liberty and patriot loving man everywhere. It will link these patriotic arts as long as the love of freedom exist in the minds of men throughout the world world. Now, with words like these, drawing on the meaning of the american revolution, lincoln expressed what Many Americans felt about themselves and the future of all mankind. Liberty and equality, he said, were prominent. Not just for the people of this nation, but to the world, for all future time. The revolution, he said, gave promise that in due time the weight should be lifted from the shoulders of all man and that all should have an equal chance in the race of life. But if the american experiment in Self Government failed, then there is hope for the future would be lost. Spreading freedom and democracy around the world had been an explicit goal of the revolution. Its what turned the americans little colonial rebellion into a world historical event. Important for everyone throughout the world, americans believed that the french revolution of 1789 was a direct consequence of their revolution, and lafayette thought so too which is why he sent the key to the bastille, that symbol of the oxygen regime, he sent that key to George Washington and it hanging six today in mount vernon. But all the 19th century efforts in creating democracy in europe that ended in failure, americans had seen the french revolution spiral into tyranny. And all attempts of europeans to create democracies in the revolutions of 1828 had been crushed. By the 18 sixties, as lincoln pointed out, the United States was a long beacon of democratic freedom in a world of monarchies. On american shoulders, american shoulders alone rested the survival of the possibility of Self Government. It was, indeed, the last best hope for the future of democracy. That responsibility as what sustained lincoln throughout the war. A war, as he said in his gettysburg address, that was testing whether this nation dedicated to liberty, equality and Self Government good long endure. Whenever we commemorate the civil war, we commemorate the revolution. Indeed, an important sense, northern success in the civil war was the culmination of the revolution. Now, how did this nation that had been so divided, or at least divided enough to defeat the greatest power in the world fall apart . Back and engage in a long and bloody civil war . The seeds of the civil war were probably sewn won the first african slaves were brought to virginia in 1819, in 16 19. But no one, no one since then got that consequence was likely. Even in 1776, one americans declared their independence from Great Britain, no one foresaw war in this newly created United States. To be sure, the 13 separate north american colonies were not very united. But they were able to come together at all in 1776 was something of a miracle. Before the revolution, the british colonies had a little sense of connectedness with one another. Most of them had closer ties with london in britain than they had with one another. Until the Continental Congress met in philadelphia in 1774, more of its members had been to london then had been to philadelphia. It was Great Britain and its policies that created the common sense of being americans. In fact, the british officials were the ones who first defined the colonists as americans, until the last moment before independence, the colonists thought of themselves as englishman. It was british tyranny expressed in the course of acts of 1774 that made the colonists declare that they were not virginians or new england ors or new yorkers but americans. The long and bloody war with Great Britain in which all parts of the country suffered at one time or another was a searing experience. More americans died in that war of portion of the population than any war in our history except of, course for the civil war when both sides were americans. No wonder that the revolution bread and extremely overwhelming sense of unity, the glorious cause of the revolution united all americans, the revolution and the beliefs and ideas that came out of it, liberty, equality, Self Government created National Bonds that were not easily broken. Indeed, they are the bonds that still hold us together and make us think of ourselves as a single people. Of course, americans at the time of the revolution where we are aware of differences which were essentially based on slavery, although slavery in 1776 legally existed in all of the new republican states, 90 of the nearly 500,000 African American slaves, about a fifth of the total population of the country that fifth lived in the south, working in the tobacco fields of chesapeake or the rice swamps of South Carolina and georgia. These Southern States were obviously different from those in the north, 1776 john adams worried that the south was to aristocratic for the kind of popular republican goverment he advocated in his pamphlet, thoughts on government. But he was surprised to learn that the Southern States were more less, did more or less adopt the kind of popular goverment he had suggested and he expressed relief and seeing the pride of the party brought down a little by the revolution. Of course, what adams was referring to was that slave Holding Society dominated by plunderer easter grants that contrast it with the more egalitarian small farm societies of the north, especially in the state of new england. But slavery was not in consequential anymore, as you perhaps know, black slaves made up nearly 7 of the population of new jersey and 14 of the population of new york city. Nearly 12 of our islands population was composed of slaves. It was not just the southern revolutionary leaders, washington jefferson, madison and so on who owned slaves, so did many of the northern leaders, bostons john hancock, new york Robert Livingston and philadelphias john dickinson, they were all slave holders. On the eve of the revolution, the mayor of philadelphia possessed 31 slaves. Nonetheless, the sectional differences were obvious, in the mid 17 eighties Stephen Hagan was convinced that in their beliefs, habits, manners and commercial interests, the southern and Northern States were not only very dissimilar but in many instances, directly opposed to one another. Jefferson, i think, agreed and in 1785 he outlined to a french friend his sense of the differences between the people of the two sections, the two societies which he attributed mostly to differences in climate. The northerners were cool, sober, labourious, persevering, independent, jealous of their own liberties and adjust to those of others, interested, chaining, superstitious and hypocritical in their religion. By contrast, said jefferson, the southerners were fiery, indolent, unsteady, independent, zealous for their liberties but trampling on those of others, generous, candid and without attachment or protections to any religion but that of the heart, despite his sensitivity to the difference, its however, jefferson in most other southern planters did not as yet see the sectional differences as endangering national unity. Now, since we know how the story turned out, its easy to read back signs of what we know will happen but its a mistake to i, think, see too many anticipations of the civil war and the revolutionary decades. In the 17 eighties, lee is from both the south and the north came to realize that the confederation for legal state created in 1777 and ratified in 1781 was not working out and would have to be reformed or scrapped altogether. The slave Holding State of virginia took the lead in this reform and was supported by National Leaders from the Northern States, the differences that arose in the Constitutional Convention and later in the 17 nineties or differences, i think, essentially of ideology, not sectional differences. The delegates different essentially over the strength of the National Government visavis misstates, the split in the convention, the Constitutional Convention was essentially between the large states that wanted proportional representation, both houses of congress and the small states that feared being overwhelmed by the more populous states. James madison of virginia and james wilson of pennsylvania eventually had to surrender, surrendered to the wishes of the small states and accept the socalled connecticut compromise that gave equal representation of two senators from each day. The issue in, other words did not divide along sectional lines, although at one point madison tried to suggest that the real division in the convention was between the slave holding and the non slave Holding States, everyone knew that this was a tactical faint designed by madison to get the convention off the large and small state division in favor of proportional representation to both houses. So, fearful was he of the power of the state legislatures to officiate national authorityiyk÷ that each state legislature electing to senators that he regarded the connecticut compromise not as a compromise but as a major defeat. Now, the Party Division that arose in the 17 nineties was essentially was not essentially i think between north and south, the difference between the federalists and the jefferson one and republicans was over the nature of the National Government in support for the french revolution, although the leadership and base of the Republican Party was certainly located in the south, the party was not in could not be exclusively a sectional party, the north and republicans were very important and increasingly dynamic part of the party, jefferson rightly never saw himself as the leader of a sectional, party he was as he said the leader of the worlds best hold unpopular democratic republican government that was something new under the sun and that promised, essentially to eventually ameliorate the conditions of agreement over the portion of the globe. No wonder lincoln put it on. His vision was essentially jeffersons. , still the slave trade lurking in this arcadian guard of farmers that threatened to destroy the democratic republican dream, at the outset the revolutionary leaders were well aware, they knew from the beginning that slavery was incompatible with the ideals of the revolution. Indeed, it was the revolution that made slavery a problem for americans. Before the mid 18th century, most americans like the rest of the world for thousands of years largely took slavery for granted as the lowest and most degraded status and a hierarchical world of degrees of freedom and dependency. For the colonists, and few colonists had bothered to criticize the institution of slavery. But the revolution changed everything, all the revolutionary leaders realize that once that there was something painfully inconsistent between their top of freedom for themselves and the owning of black slaves. If all men were created equal, as all in persons were now saying, then what justification could there be for Holding Africans in slavery . Since the american colonists by the law of nature are born free, ice indeed all men are, white or black, doesnt follow ask james otis of massachusetts in 1764, doesnt follow that its right to enslave a man because he is black . The revolutionary rhetoric made the contradiction excruciating, excruciating for Many Americans. Both in the north and even in the south. Prominently folding southerners like jefferson declared that the abolition of domestic straight slavery, the great object of desire in these colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. Given the mounting sense of inconsistency between the revolutionary ideas and the holding of people in bondage, its not surprising that the first antislave convention in the history of the world was held in philadelphia in 1775. Now, if the revolutionary leaders, those founders who were otherwise so enlightened and so far sighted knew that slavery contradicted everything the revolution was about, why didnt they do more to and the institution that they claimed to uproar . I think this is the question many historians and many people in the society are asking today, the reason i think that they didnt act more forcefully was that many of them, perhaps most thought that time was on the side of abolition, as incredible as it may seem to us who know what they could not know, that is the future, the leaders tended to believe that slavery was on its last legs and was headed for eventual distraction, doctor Benjamin Rush was convinced that the desire to abolish the institution prevails in our council and among our all ranks of every province with hostility to slavery mounting everywhere in the atlantic word, 1774 predicted that there will not be in the gross live in north america in 40 years. In light and virginians also assumed that slavery could not long indoor, jefferson told a french correspondent in 1786 that there were in the virginia legislation meant of virtue and talents enough to propose and to move toward the gradual emancipation of slaves. To be sure, they sought that their moment of emancipation had not yet arrived but, said jefferson, with the spread of light and liberal lady among the slave holders, that moment was coming, slavery simply could not stand against the relentless march of liberty and progress, that the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was scrupulous it not mentioning slaves, slavery or knee gross in the final draft of the constitution, it seemed to point toward a future without the shameful institution. If the revolutionary dream that slavery would naturally die weight had been realized, it wouldve of course never been a civil war, this illusion that slavery would die a natural death led the revolutionary leaders to table it, to abolish the institution they thought that in time it would simply weather away, but slavery in the United States was not at all on its last likes, predictions of its demise could not have been more wrong, far from being doomed, american slavery in fact was on the verge of its greatest expansion. How could the revolutionary leaders have been so mistaken . How could they have deceived themselves so completely for a full generation, the nations leaders live with the illusion that the institution of slavery was declining and on its way to being eliminated, of all the illusions they had about the future, this i think was the greatest. But the founders self deception and mistaken opted mission was understandable, for they wanted to believe the best and initially there was evidence that slavery was, in fact being eliminated and dying out, the Northern States where slavery was not deeply rooted, as we know in the economy began immediately to attack the institution with the revolution and by 18 oh for, every Northern State had provided for the eventual end of slavery, the south, where slavery of course was much more deeply entrenched in the economy and the society was slower to act, but even in the south there were encouraging signs of movement against the institution, especially in virginia, virginia was no ordinary state. It was by far the most populous state, indeed by itself it made up a fifth of the population of the entire nation. It was as well the largest state and territory in the richest state, its not surprising that four out of the first five president s were virginians and the working model for the constitution in the convention was the virginia plan. During the first few decades of the new republic, virginia dominated the nation as no state ever has. As virginia went, so what the nation. Now, there were signs in the 17 eighties and 17 nineties that virginia was trying to do something about slavery. If virginia could abolish slavery, that it was assumed the rest of the south would surely follow, in virginia the harsh black coats of the early 18th century had fallen into neglect, by the time of the revolution, fraternization between white and black slaves had become more common, both in sporting events and in religion, the growing of wheat instead of tobacco is changing the nature of slavery in the upper south and many of the planters now calling themselves farmers began hiring out there slaves, suggesting to some that slavery might eventually be replaced by wage labor. Other evidence from the upper south seem to reinforce the idea that slavery was on its way to extinction, what could be a more conspicuous endorsement, and its incredible when you think about, it and more conspicuous endorsement of the anti slave cause than having the college of william and mary, board of visitors made up of wealthy slave holding planters in 1791 confer an honourary degree on the celebrated british abolitionist greenville sharp. Think about that that there were more anti slaves societies created in the south than in the north, it was bound to make people feel that the south was moving in the same direction of gradual emancipation as the north, in virginia and maryland some of these anti slaves societies brought freedom suits in state courts that led to some piecemeal emancipation, the suits may not seem very meaningful by our standards, but by the standards of the 18th century they were significant, if the slaves could demonstrate that they had a maternal indian or white ancestor, they could be immediately freed, and hearsay evidence was often enough to convince the courts. Whole families recalled one sympathetic observers were often liberated by a single verdict, the fate of one relative deciding the fate of many, by 1796 nearly 30 freedom suits were pending in virginia courts, by the 17 nineties the free black population in the upper south had increased to over 30, 000, and by 18 tenth free blacks numbered over 94,000 people, when even southerners like jefferson, patrick henry, Henry Lawrence and st. George tucker publicly deplored the institutions the injustice of slavery, from that moment declared the new york physician and abolitionists ph smith in 1798, from that moment that slow but certain death was inflicted upon it. Everywhere, even in South Carolina, slave holders began to feel defensive about slavery and began to sense of public pressure against the institution they have never felt before. In the aftermath of the institution, whites in charleston expressed squeamishness about the evils of slavery, especially the public trading and punishment. South carolina masters expressed a great reluctance to break up families and began monument in their slave, theys freed more slaves in that decade of the 17 eighties that had been freed in the previous three decades. What helps to convince many people in the north that slavery stays more numbered was the promised ending of the despicable slipped aid in 18 away. Almost everywhere in the new world, that continued deportation of slaves from africa, although this need for slaves from africa it was no longer true of the upper south, South Carolina and georgia were still importing slaves, the fact that the deep south and the rest of the new world, latin america in the caribbean need slave importations to maintain the institution alluded Many Americans into believing that slavery in america it was also depending on the International Slave trade and that ending the slave trade would eventually and slavery itself. Those who held out that hope were utterly wrong, of course, they simply did not appreciate how demographically different north american slavery was from that and south american and the caribbean, they were blind to the fact that in most states of north america, the slaves were approximating the growth of whites, nearly doubling in number every 20 to 25 years which, of course, is twice as fast as the europeans were growing, northerners had little to no appreciation that slavery and the south was a healthy, vigorous and expansive institution, as far as they were concerned, virginia and maryland planters who had more slaves than they knew what to do with her enthusiastically supporting an end to the International Slave trade as the first major step in eliminating the institution of slavery itself, this assault on the overseas slave trade appeared to align the chesapeake planters with the anti slave forces in the war land confused many northerners about the real intentions of the upper south which, in fact, was in the distance of exporting its surplus of slaves to the lower self. All these developments misled Many Americans and allowed them to postpone dealing with the issue, like john adams and all of our elves worth with their chief justice of the supreme court, they thought that once the importation of slaves was cut off, white laborers would become so numerous that the need for slaves would disappear, slavery, settles worth, in time will not be a setback in our country. , in the meantime, the initial differences between the two sections were rapidly and dramatically increasing, becoming more severe. During the three or four decades following the revolution, the north and south through much further apart, both sections were american and republican, both professed a similar rhetoric of liberty and popular government, but beneath the surface they were fast becoming very different places with different cultures, different values, one coming to honor common labor with supreme human activity, another continuing to think of labor, manual labor in traditional terms as mean and despicable and fit only for slaves. When on the eve of the civil war, the south complained that it remained a true to the 18th century public and it was the north that had changed, it was absolutely right and correct, in the years immediately following the revolution, the northwest radically transformed, politically economically, socially and culturally, it was not just that the population broke into two sections, although by 1810 new york had surpassed virginia as the largest state. It was the very nature of the growth in the north, the Northern States were building turnpikes and canals, creating banks and corporations, increasing the growing internal trade with paper money to an extent not duplicate it in the Southern States, everywhere in the Northern States, farm families were busy buying and selling with each other, the society was still predominantly rural, still agricultural but with no Large Manufacturing cities as in england but in many respects, many northern towns people seem to be doing nothing else, doing Everything Else but farming. But 1815, even the tiny town of mount pleasant, ohio what they population of only 500 persons had several dozen artisans and manufacturing shops including three saddle or,s three hat makers, four blacksmith, four weavers, six shoemakers, three cabinet makers, one baker, one apothecary, to wagon makers, to tanneries, one wool cardigan machine maker, one will carding machinist, one will spinning machinist, one fleece spinner, one flax spinner and want a nail factory. Within a sixmile radius of this little town, 500 people, there were nine merchant knowles, to mills, 12 sawmills and one paper mill. One will in fact three and two full mills, nothing like that, nothing like that in the south. Nothing like this little ohio town in the south, the north most becoming the most highly commercialized society in the world. The north was becoming increasingly dominated by hosts of what we will later call middle class people, commercial farmers, mechanics, clerks, teachers, businessman, industrious, self trained would be professionals, who celebrated work and the making of money to a degree unprecedented in the atlantic world, the celebration of labor, especially manual labor it was important, ever since aristotle, but leisure aristocrats in the professional classes had helped labor, a special manual labor and the making of money in contempt. Even someone who ran a business, say a printing business with 20 employees was nonetheless considered to be involved with manual labor and thus contemptible, such men who worked for a living, aristotle said, could never possess virtue and could never exercise political leadership. Perhaps nothing, nothing came to separate the north from the south more than they are contrasting views of labor, the south dominated as it was by leisure slave holding planters could scarcely conceive of labor as anything but despicable and shameful, slavery as it had for centuries going all the way back to the ancient creeks required a culture that held labor in contempt, scorn for work and the holding of slaves were two sides of the same point, the north developed very differently in, the several decades following the revolution the middling man of the north using egalitarian rhetoric of the revolution lost a wholesale campaign against aristocrat who had scorned them for ages, they urged each other to shed their political apathy and to rouse against all those gentleman who as one critic said were not under the necessity of gaining their bread by industry, called them parasites living off the labor of honest farmers in the camps. These lead aristocrats who do not labor but who enjoy in luxury the fruits of labor, critics said these northern critics that, had no right to decide the law as they had in the past. Of course, the american aristocrats, these middling people attack were not european aristocrats, in the eyes of these middling sorts, these leisure aristocrats were more what we might call elites. The 1 , perhaps, or the elites and they were the deplorables in the eyes of these elites. They were mostly members of the professions lawyers, judges, physicians, clergymen, government officials, professors, these are the elites that were assaulted by the middling sorts of people. Anyone who is not involved in manual labor in one form or another, in the eyes of these middling sorts, artisans, clerks, businessmen, these elites seem to do no real work. The celebration of labor inevitably made the south, with its leash and aristocratic leadership supported by slavery seem increasingly enormous. In reaction to the southern aristocrats, again emphasizing their cavalier status in contrast to the money grubbing northern yankees, they began claiming that they were the only true gentleman left in america. It was not just the brutal act of slavery that mattered, it was what slavery did to the society, slavery in the south tended to create a difference society, a different economy, a different culture from the north, while the north was coming to value labor as necessary and fit for all social ranks, much of the white population of the south was becoming more and more contemptuous of work and more and more desirous of acquiring the leisure that slavery seem to afford. Indeed, so great was the flight of the white colt of indolence that some southerners began to worry about the discrepancy between the industrious north and the lethargic, lazy south. Where there is new grow slavery, one concern virginia told James Madison, there will be laziness, carelessness and wastefulness, not so much among the slaves, he said as among the white masters. The south grew in population and it prosperity but its culture and its society remained traditional in many ways. During the antebellum decades when the north was commercially exploding, the south remain essentially what it had been in the 18th century, a stable producing slave Holding Society, cotton production replaced tobacco and rice as the principal staple, but the society, the economy and much of the politics remains roughly what it had been during the 18th century, slavery determined the organization of the society. The wealthy slave holding planters dominated the society to a degree no one in the north could match, they manage the overseas marketing of the stable crops for the small planters which reinforced the unequal relationship between patrons and clients, more important, there patriarchal system of slavery sustained a horror hierarchical society, a society that was very different from that of the Northern States, the commercial institutions that were springing up in the north had few counterparts in the Southern States, the south did not have the numbers of turnpikes, canals banks, corporations and issues of paper money that the north. Fearing any interference from the pecuniary institution, planter dominated legislatures kept voting to a minimum, they tax their citizens much less heavily than the north earners and spent much less on education and social services then did the northern legislatures, although most southern farmers were not slave holders and many of the plain folk of the south surely worked as hard as any ambitious northern artisan, these ordinary southern folk would never give the same kind of enterprising middling tone to Southern Society that existed in the north, there were fewer middling institutions in the south, fewer towns, fewer schools, fewer newspapers, through our businesses, fewer manufacturing firms and fewer shops and there were fewer middle people in the south fewer teachers, fewer clerks, fewer publishers fewer editors fewer engineers or inventors and fewer patents, the antebellum south never became a middling commercial Market Society like that of the north. Its patriarchal order of large slave holders continue to dominate both the culture and the politics in the section, but James Madison privately admitted in 17 nineties, in proportions that slavery prevails in the state, the goverment, however democratic his name must be aristocratic. I said north and south gradually grew apart, each section began expressing increasing frustration with the other. Aggravating differences that had been present from the beginning of the revolution. Northerners, especially new england federalists began to complain about what they now saw as the unjust, justified southern domination of the federal government. They focused on the three fifths clause of the constitution that counted slaves as three fifths of a person for assessing representation in the house of representatives in the electoral college. The federalists charged let the free fix clause gave an unfair advantage to republicans who, is responsible for jeffersons election in 1800, thus was born the idea of the slave power that was unfairly usurping control of the National Government by the free states. Even more unsettling, to some northerners, was the gradual brutalization that slavery was not dying in the south after all. The earlier enthusiasm of the upper south for liberalism in its slave system began to dissipate, especially following the news of the rebellion in the french colony of sand domain which became haiti. Gabriels conspiracy in virginia and 1800 further destroyed the hopes of many that virginia was gradually eliminating slavery. The earlier leniency and freedom suits in forging ended and missions in the state rapidly declined, northerners now began southerners now began reversing their earlier examples of racial mingling, evangelical protestant churches and in the practice of mixed congregations after 1800, the Southern States began enacting new set of black codes that resembled later jim crow laws, typing up the institution of slavery and restricting the behavior of free blacks. Indeed, because free blacks seem to threaten the slaves system great at its heart, it they are compelled by law now to leave the Southern States. The final blow to all the illusions came with the missouri crisis of 1819, the attempt by the new york congressman james thomas junior and the house of representatives to attach a prohibition of slavery to building missouri to the union precipitated a crisis more severe than anything felt before, jefferson told john adams from the battle of bonkers hill to the treaty of paris, we never had so ominous the question. I thank god that i shall not live to witness its issue, the missouri crisis caused scales to fall from the eyes of both northerners and southerners. The north came to realize clearly the south was not going to abolish slavery, that it was aiming to carry the institution into the west, the south for its part came to realize more clearly than ever before that the north really cared about abolishing slavery and would never, never stop trying to end it and certainly they did not want the institution to spread to the west. From that moment, americans clearly saw signs of a storm on the horizon, at first no bigger than a mans hand, but signs of a storm that will grow larger and more ominous every year, from that moment, i believe the civil war became inevitable. Thank you. applause ill be happy to take questions. In speaking of the growth of slavery, the conflicts that were happening at that time today we are admiring the conflicts over our heritage. How would you advise government, state governments, cities to deal with their statues, plaques, the legacy of what you described so eloquently . Well, im a historian, and i believe that the past is part of our culture. Im very uneasy about these efforts to remove statues and so on. Its not different from what the taliban was doing in the middle east, and we condemn that because they had religious objections to the temples that were there. I think these things need to be explained, but they are part of our past and we must confront that passed. But we dont have to remain wet into the past. And i understand the objections that young black students have to a statue of a confederate general that was a slave holder and lead the confederacy, one of the leaders of the confederacy. But somehow that has to be explained. Maybe the statues have to be removed, at least temporarily to museums and maintained their and conceptualized. That is explained, and so on. But i think its a very dangerous thing to start erasing once passed. Thats what the soviets did, thats what ideologues do when they come into power and we dont want to be that kind of people, i dont think. I think we know our history is a mixed bag, of course, but i think there are other elements in it that redeem us, i hope. I know whats being taught in the universities now, the tale of American History is a tale of oppression and whoa, i think thats unfortunate. There are facts that are being emphasized. The feet of indians, the extent of slave holding, at the same time there are other facts that also need to be emphasized. We need a balanced picture, at, least of our past. Otherwise, we leave ourselves and equipped to deal with the world. We are not a terrible nation and we need to have some balanced view of our past. But it is a very, as you know, a very complicated issue and very tricky and difficult and i dont have any easy answers for this dilemma. That we office. Yes maam . Im a High School Teacher inaudible thank you so much, youre lecture was very informative. I had two questions, ill present one. Ive taught that you like whitneys invention was probably as powerful as the cultural standards in the south because it was the mechanism, the tool that allowed for the importation of more slaves. And also, the Mexican American war and the new territories, and would you give them equal weight . Well, i think that whitney got credit for the invention, hes an engineer. But somebody was going to invent. It there was a lot of money to be made if you could come up with a machine that did what that did, that was in the cards, it was going to happen. That year or next year somebody else was going to do it, so he happens to get all the credible blame for that, and that device was going to be invented by somebody. The mexican war, we were, maybe we were and maybe we still are, but we were a very expansionist nation. It was demographic imperialism, if you will, we had people moving at tremendous rates and we took a huge chunk of territory from mexico, most with some mexican citizens but not huge numbers, not going into fully inhabited, we werent taking fully inhabited land but we wanted that territory and there is no doubt that that was, and of course the future in the number of mexican immigrants come to the United States that they might say we would like to get that back, i think if the immigrants become americanize they will probably say, we are not going to go back to joining mexico but there is a major part of our country texas, arizona new mexico and Southern California all belong to mexico and we took it in a war, so words have consequences and the same would be true of the indians, that we fought almost a century, more than a century against the indians and destroyed them. So, words have consequences and we have seen that, the germans have lost huge amounts of territory as a consequence of world war ii and they were moved, people were moved, hundreds of thousands of people were moved after world war ii, i dont hear a lot of complaints, maybe some german citizens 100 years from now will say, we used to have coarseness bergh, thats where someone so it was born why dont we get it back . That kind of thing has gone on through the history of the world, so we were involved in certain major changes, demographic changes and geographic changes that are part of history, for good or for ill it was part of the dynamic character of this nation. Yes, sir . Ill come back to you. Hi, thank you for being here today. My question is, and this is obviously counter factual but looking back, is there, are their steps that could have been taken that might have alleviated the concerns of southern slave holders and alleviated the concerns of northerners that might have stayed off or prevented the civil war from happening in your opinion . I dont think so. I think the institution was too deeply entrenched in the southern economy and society, the numbers were too great, 40 of this state, virginia for the state of virginia, not the district what the state of virginia was made up of black slaves, 60 of South Carolina was the proportion, those proportions are so high, its difficult for me to see how the problem could have been solved. The best minds they fought things were going the right way but they really didnt know the reality, they live with solutions. Of course, we live with solutions to, we just dont know what they are. Historians will look back and say, how could they be thinking that . You have to understand that we dont know our future. They didnt know their future anymore than we know hours. We have all kinds of predictions about what will be and we are in better shape to make those predictions, but we really cant be sure its going to be like at the end of the 24 century. They did the best they could, i think, given the circumstances. It looks easy when you look back and say why could they have done that . It just wasnt going to happen. I dont think there was anything that could have been done to solve the problem. Once you get going, as i say, by the time you get to the missouri crisis, thats it. The war is inevitable, as far as im concerned, there is just no way to stop the sections from clashing, all those compromises were just postponing the inevitable and the war came, as lincoln said. Yes, maam . Go ahead. I found it super interesting that you say that the moment of no return is the compromise and i hadnt thought about that before, so what i was thinking about was the Northwest Territories and how we go from the north with ordinance, with outlaws slavery very, very early and its reconfirmed over and over again as the states join the union, how do we go from a Northwest Territory which puts a value on no slavery and on Public Education to a missouri compromise and basically one generation . Of, course the northwest david mccaul ors new book points out, its settled essentially by new england ors. They were really sending loads of people out west, the new englands economy was unable to sustain its rapidly growing population, so sons and daughters left by the hundreds and thousands, tens of thousands, and so the northwest, settled by southerners and in some parts indiana was a very, very divided state in illinois, to they had fights in the state and its a demographic fight and if you had more slave holders but fortunately i think for both of those states the northern anti slave people had the numbers but there were slave holders and slavery was existing despite the northwest ordinance they are but the states when the territories became states they just took action and force the slave holders to move out. Demography and movement of people is more determinant of offense than any laws. I, mean think about the law, the constitution that prohibits the states from printing paper money. If that had been enforced, that was a principal reason why the convention was held, madison and the other leaders hated paper money. Paper money was the source of the commercial dynamism of the north. And they needed that paper money, and of course what they did was the states got around that prohibition by traveling banks which then issued paper money. So forces will find a way around the technical or legal documentary motivations, and the people who were slave holders simply didnt go into it, and try to stay away from the northwest and went into the southwest. So i think it was settled mostly by northerners. Yes . Go ahead. Second row there. Hello, im a question about your interpretation of the revolutionary founders and there regarding slavery. He said its on its way out and thats why they did not take stronger steps to abolish it. I was thinking about connections to Abraham Lincoln, and how many times he made unpopular choices after the idea of compromising. Frederick douglas would like to be more forceful and then he wasnt. Do you think it could be the fact that they have so many Different Things to think about and compromise with the Southern States to get the constitution ratified or similar to lincoln when people would compromise. Lincoln was a politician but at a very high order when you think about it. He was a democratic politician so he had to do the avenues but ill like many of our present day politicians transcended a reality and his rhetoric and language but he was a man of prudence which was the principal principal quality needed by politicians. He was willing to compromise and he said on the eve but im not out to destroy the existing states. I and the Republican Party will guarantee the existence of slavery in the states. Its the west that you want to guarantee and that became a crucial issue. Lincoln felt that if slavery could expand it would die. By taking that stand hes willing to compromise and support an investment of the institution and the existing states. The ability to compromise will get along with your opponents and get a lot of it done. And thats the problem sour having as you know if youre partisanship gets overwhelming and compromise becomes impossible then you have great difficulties. What laid behind their willingness in the constitutional prevention was the sense that slavery would die away. If they dont have that, they might have taken a stronger stand. But they were ready in 1787 to make a lot of concessions to have an opinion. And South Carolina and georgia where they had walked out. He was an irritant but lets abolish slavery and origins said that they would walk out of the convention. But that didnt really affect the union it collapsed. There was people willing to compromise on that issue. In retrospect it looks like why did they do that. But i think at that point i thought that the union was more important than slavery. Because slavery was on its way out anyhow. If you dont believe that, and of course thats not the reality but, thats what they lived with, disillusion that i was dying and believed you could find an enormous amount of statements in literature. They were all wrong but we dont know what our illusions are. Yes sir. laughs thanks for coming. You started your lecture there was an surprising that he was a common thing and you said that the silver war was inevitable. What is the factor that leads him not to compromise . He fights to preserve the union. I think its this vision. Lincoln is talking in the aftermath of the failure of the revolutions of 1848. We cant appreciate those revolutions but the whole europe was the whole series and every country except england which has its own smaller disturbances. Democracy is racing through germany, france and italy, switzerland. The austrian and hungarian and empire had upheavals and much more pervasive than weve got so excited about the arab spring and when it was really exciting in america. The hungarian patriot came here to raise money and celebrated everywhere. We were enthusiastic supporters of that and the austrian, hungarian minister complained to Daniel Webster who was secretary of state. He said mister secretary, your country is supporting this revolution abroad. Normal diplomatic situation. The secretary of state wouldve gobbled it up and played it down. But websters reply was extraordinary. Yes we are the source of occurring in europe and we are responsible for it. Because of this tirade attacking the Hungarian Ministry and taking full responsibility and of course we werent but thats what we thought about in the rule of monarchy. They are saying besides, the end erin empire it was a speck to compared to the United States. They all failed. So lincoln this is it. They are the last best hope and if we fail, then the dream fails and democracy fails. We may never have it again because of this nation falls apart the dream that have been destroyed in europe will never be revived because it shows that democracy doesnt work. I think its in that context that you understand that they have this rhetoric where they really believe that a new is true. That this is the only major democracy left. All these are valiance which seem so full of hope and all of been dissipated and failed. In france you have the polling in the third who looked promising at the outset and as the second emperor. It seemed like monarch he was here forever. I think thats the context for understanding lincoln. So i think this United States is important not just for the fellow americans about for the history of the world and he gives you that worldwide context because he had the same vision that jeff resumed it. The whole world is going to follow our leadership and become democratic. He said if we fail, then the dream is gone. That is the way i think you understand it. Yes maam, go ahead. When you are making your point about the different ideals regarding labor. I was wondering how you fit the jack sony and democracy into that. Is he the champion of the common man who wants equal opportunity for all . Or the the person protecting slavery and protecting the rights to own slaves . Do they exist together in the end or he just an enigma . Jackson took his slave holding for granted i dont think thats what the administration was about. Hes a very trump like figure. Probably the president closest to in the past who had the same kind of reputation to some extent that trump has. Hated by elites and john quinte adams and was appalled at the deer harvard and honourary degree because he was a vulgar man without education. But jackson stood for Common People. He voiced this democratic rhetoric, and he stood up. But he was a slave holder, but i dont think thats what he was about, and i dont think thats what he thought he was about. He was defending against threats from the south, kowloon and breaking up the union. And he was defending the common man. He is scarcely understood, hes not a learned man, he scarcely understood the nature of his following but he does represent a democracy, that was the moment one authority of all sorts was being questioned in america, and in that respect its very similar to the president , epistemological doubt whats true, this is the era of pc barnum, martin worked on this, he was a genius because he would say, look, ive got this woman who is a mermaid, she has a fishtail, its in my museum but he would plant a story in the newspapers, who cant believe that . How can that be true . And of course people would flock to go because they, said i can only trust my own eyes, i dont believe what elites tell me, they would say the moon has green cheese on and elise would say, of course the moon doesnt have green cheese, but barnum would raise the question, how do they know . How can you know anything . You only know what you see and feel, and of course that as Herman Belleville said, thats what Common People think, that they have to trust their own eyes and ears and senses, but learned people have reason and they can transcend their senses, that was a crisis in that period. Thats why you had all the hoaxes, they flourished, more so than we have, we have the same kind of problem because we have this internet with social media, so any normal craig can get himself heard, but the same thing was happening in the 18 twenties and thirties with people questioning elites and authority of all sorts. How can you trust them . And we have the same mistrust of elites now and therefore, all kinds of rumors spread, vaccinations are dangerous, all kinds of things spread because nobody trusts authority anymore and thats a real crisis, they only period in our history thats comparable in my mind is the jack sony and period where you had an epistemological crisis and thats why you had Edgar Allen Poe and barnum really cannot be explained, the success of barnum hes a genius because he understands the public, and he really exploited that mistrust of authority. Yes, sir. Thank you for your comments today, ive got one quick question for you and that is, when you began to talk about the differences in culture of the north and the south, would you like to comment in regards to the religious background behind each of the developing systems, the calvinists and the church of england that seem to be very strong in both of those areas, calvinist north and church of england south. Well, of course there were baptized in the north and baptiste in the south and until they came to the eve of the civil war they were doctors but then they broke, the southern baptize separated from the northern baptiste, the Episcopal Church of course was conservative and as far as i know it was a minor church in the north and minor in terms of numbers in the south, so the religion broke but there was no religion that was confined as far as i know to the south and to the north that was distinctive, there were baptized and they were northern baptiste and southern backed us, they often were in Different Directions but that comes in late in the 18 forties and fifties, they began to break apart. But im not sure the gist of your question. Spirited were effect work ethic. Oh thats a little misleading because the puritan work ethic is often associated with capitalism, max favorite made a lot of that, the puritans certainly did emphasize that because they want it to keep, they didnt sort of celebrate work as a source of productivity in society but celebrated it as a way of keeping the lower ones busy so they wouldnt get into trouble, but the interesting question is where does the celebration of work come from . And the United States celebrates work in the antebellum period to an extent not duplicated elsewhere in the world, if you read took fill, one of the things when he comes here in the 18 thirties is the extent to which people are celebrating work, even manual labor, and the making of money which elsewhere among aristocrats elites, is held in contempt, took hill says look, french people like money to but they dont ever say that they like it, they always hide that fact and he is really surprised he said jeez, he went to albany and had a whole list of officers from the mayor, council, and a list of salaries, he said this is unprecedented, he said he is overwhelmed by the celebration of labor, the work and people want to know one of the big social logical questions, how come we never had a labour Party Develop . People in the north work was so celebrated that even the professionals like edward ever it would say that he wants to run for office and say that im a worker to and i will have to celebrate law that he would celebrate as labor. But then wears the labour party and he would have the work and the aristocracy was separate fit then the leisure. Which is a admits to crack. Do you remember maggie smith . This is in the 21st century and still living in the 19 century and she doesnt understand why her new grandson in law whos inherited the estate wants to keep his job. He cant do that and he has to run the estate and thats what they do. They dont work and she emphasized the scriptwriter who is very insightful and has force a. What they weekend . She doesnt understand. Aristocrats work for money and it comes without exertion that come in. This goes back to the constitution. One of the reasons why we dont have a lot of ten a tree unlike england is how do aristocrats live . They are living on the interest of loans. They have money, but they didnt have acting as landlords because theres too much land available so people are not going to put up with being tenants. What elites are doing and this is northern elise as well is that their lending money out and getting the interest back. The reason theyre so upset with that in particular with paper money and all are upset with paper money is because paper money is inflating the currency and these adapters are paying back to their creditors that its the elite. Theyre paying back and paper which was out and gold and silver and are really upset by that because not just a problem of money but a capacity to be an aristocrat. Its one of the factors thats left behind the obsession with paper money in the convention. They wanted to give all over the state legislation and one of the things you want to get rid of it particularly the issue of paper money was he not getting his veto because every state would have to send its laws to the congress before they got approved and wiser heads prevailed and article one, section ten of the constitution prohibits estates to approve certain things. They cant pass tariffs, they cannot print money. Thats probably a good thing today. But the antebellum as i would say no in the north but never succeed except by getting around this prohibition and creating banks which then issued the paper money and have hundreds of millions of dollars flying around. Its incredibly complicated but nonetheless, they succeeded and it must have been an awful way to get a note the virginia washington and you get a note from albany and 100 dollars in a bank an albany but you dont want to go to albany because this is the kind of business you have to deal with. They had burnt books, merchants had books where they said albany has a good reputation and i want this but i wont take it. Thats the way it operated and it was very difficult for real men retail men to operate. They dont have that problem because they dealt with england and no english merchants are going to accept being paid and they have have gold and silver or they got something more substantial. For internal trade, trade between pennsylvania and philadelphia the line is perfect and in the economy. One more question. Again, i want to express my thanks to you for coming. I wanted a writ off of your when the epistemological crisis and i was wondering your theory or theories on the source of that crisis. The app is to make logical crisis. It is the mythology is a way of knowledge but how do you trust what you know. If someone if some position in a Company Trust says that the nation is good but if you come to doubt this authority and you dont believe it then you have to have to have a philosopher question about what is true and not true. How do you test things. That is what is happening in the 18 thirties and its happening to us today. We still have a lot of authorities that we respect but there are pockets and you know the internet is flooded with the stuff. They create doubts everywhere. So, many ordinary people are really mistrustful of the world that most of us except. We cant trust a politician, we cant trust people in authority. It is very difficult and this is a world where we lose trust and you cant verify everything. You have to trust somebody and if someone tells you that Mount Everest is 29,000 feet, you cant go and counting go up there and measure it. There are a whole host of things where we take peoples word that we come to doubt their words. Then you have a real crisis of the party in the country. Its not just politicians but everybody. Physicians, bankers, Corporate Leaders and you get politicians attacking your leaders and saying that theyre a bunch of liars. Then youre mistrust goes and theyre playing with fire and it is a tricky issue. The 18 thirties or far worse and of course they didnt have own media of newspapers but they didnt have social media and no one crack pot could have his voice heard. But thats what i meant by the crisis. How do you know its true or not true. Is it a followup to this . I can hear you. inaudible the crisis of the 18 thirties happened . The anti elite arguments were so forceful and police were on their heels and they simply were rising up of ordinary people and celebration and his celebration of labor with a unprecedented history of the world which is essentially the world. So people really didnt trust elites. They were having a hard time justifying themselves. To some extent, thats one of the problems we have today with, us. Some columnist are calling trumps followers inaudible and its pretty appropriate. Its obviously a genius move with social media that hes tapped into something that is people are going to write about that the right the way they were about ptsd barnum and to the culture which is puzzling too many of us which is just incredible whats happening but its a good period. applause thank you