And he argues that president lincoln was against slavery, but was willing to accept it in order to preserve the union. This is an hour and a half, hosted by the New York Historical society and the bryant park reading room. Thank you alex castle and paul room arrow. And thanks to the Bryant Park Corporation and the bryant park reading room, and the hsbc corporation and all those who have made it possible for me to appear here tonight. Its a particular privilege to speak here in new york city. Already, in 1860, as it remains today, new york was the nerve center of the nation. The herald, the tribune, the times, the three most influential and widely read newspapers in the United States, were publish right here. Each provides the historian with a wealth of insights, and each informs my presentation tonight. Here is what i am going to talk about. I focus on the fateful series of events in late 1860, and early 1861, when a president ial election triggered a grave crisis, and before long, a civil war. Let us hope that history never repeats itself. But let us remember that any endurable electoral system has attributes that we dare not take for granted. It presupposes some degree of shared values. It presupposes that you accept the legitimacy of your opponents, and that you accept the verdict of the voters. It presupposes that Political Parties behave responsibly, and be prepared to govern. It presupposes that Neither Party nominate a man on horseback, who might try to up in the entire system. Above all, it presupposes that bullets never supplant ballots. I will organize my top into four main topics. First, Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party. I will try to answer several key questions. What did lincoln and the republicans stand for an 1860 . What did they hope to do . Did they intend to abolish southern slavery, or was the republican anti Slavery Program mostly Wishful Thinking about the distant future . Second, the slave holding south. Here, i will ask why the south flew off the rails after lincolns election. Was the slave system imperiled, or did white southerners overreact, and thereby transform a distant danger into a deadly and immediate threat . Third, we will talk about the book i have just written. It suggests that we need to revisit carefully the actual situation at the time. We need to know how political leaders and ordinary people, both north and south, expected events to unfold. As we shall see, our supposed advantage of hindsight can mislead us, and make it harder for us to see what people at the time thought was happening. Fourth, i will end with some thoughts about the tension between myth and history. Why does a mythic version of history tend to dominate our historical memory . Why do we often seem to prefer feelgood folklore to demonstrable facts . What can we learn about American History more broadly from taking a fresh look at the crises that led to the civil war . First, lets start with Abraham Lincoln. In november 1863, when lincoln spoke so memorably at gettysburg about a nation conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, he was looking towards a hoped for future, rather than accurately describing the american past. A growing shelf of modern scholarship challenges lincolns understanding of history. Yes, some of the Founding Fathers wanted to curb or restrict sleigh voting, but, according to historian george van cleave, they had a far stronger desire to create a federal union that possess sufficient power to govern a continent. Lincoln thought the Founding Fathers expected slavery to disappear. But the constitution, in fact, gave slavery new protections. It establish what van cleave calls a slave holders union. It made the south and equal partner as the United States first took shape. Historian david wall striker agrees. Everyone who participated and writing the constitution in philadelphia in 1787 knew that it had to nullify slaveowners. The framers omitted the word sleigh from the constitution to shield National Hypocrisy and embarrassment, but they crafted numerous, weasel worded, safeguards for slavery. On balance, waldstreicher concludes, the constitution was deliberately ambiguous, but operationally pro slavery. Lincoln lived in a country where the slave system was deeply rooted. It had spread rapidly across the Lower Mississippi valley during his lifetime. He didnt like it, and thinking about it made him miserable. He convinced himself that the Founding Fathers really had wanted Something Better, but lincoln, and most other anti slavery northerners, also prize the union with slave holders and they wanted it preserved. He was committed to values that could not logically be reconciled, historian david potter once wrote. Lincoln on the republican parties mainstream moderates hope that slavery eventually would disappear, but they had no blueprint to get from here to there. They read the constitution to mean that they had no power to touch slavery in the states where it already existed. Instead, they counted on white southerners to realize at some point in the future that free labor would create a more prosperous and Productive Society than slave labor. Republicans had no plan to fight a war that would revolutionize southern society. So what did lincoln actually proposed to do . He and his republican friends believed the south wielded too much power in the union. The Republican Party coalesced in the 18 fifties to challenge what they called the slave power. Republicans vowed to enable the free white men of the north to gain the political clout to which their numbers and title them. That meant evicting these southern dominated Democratic Party from its stranglehold on national office. Once in power, republicans promised, they would stop the spread of slavery to the territories, what they called free soil would become national policy. Some republicans wanted to do more. White northerners who considered slavery a moral problem demanded a more aggressive plan to de nationalize it. Republicans, such as ohio congressman josh about gettings, said the federal government should do nothing to uphold or sustain the slim system. They called for more than territorial restriction. Gettings and his allies also wanted to abolish slavery in the district of columbia, to restrict or eliminate the interstate slave trade, to prevent additional slave states from entering the union, and to repeal the fugitive slave, act a law that made it easier to recapture slaves that had escaped to the north. Rallying cry for hardline republicans like giddings was Freedom National. But the stance assumed by the Republican Party in its victorious 1860 campaign, gave short shrift to Freedom National absolutists. Mainstream Republican Leaders, led by lincoln, emphasize that they pose no threat to slavery in the states. They focus narrowly on the territories, and on the long run hope, that white southerners might reconsider their addiction to forced labor. Had republicans embraced the hardline plan to denationalized slavery, lincoln suspected, the party would lose the north swing voters. If republicans demanded repeal of the fugitive slave law, lincoln feared, it might direct the party. I confess, i hate to see the poor creatures hunted down and caught, and carried back to their stripes and unrewarded toils, he once told a friend, but i buy my lip and keep quiet. Republican party managers, nevertheless, needed the votes of white northerners who saw slavery as a moral problem. Party promoters endlessly promised their enlightened moral minority that territorial containment was the first step on the road to abolition, but they never identified the second step. Lets now turn to my next topic, the south on the eve of the war. You might think, in light of what i have just said, that southern slave holders have little to worry about. If they faced any problem at all, it was in the distant future. That indeed is pretty much the way i see it, but the republican parties anti slavery stance offended the white south and got its backup. Disagreement and spiraled dangerously out of control. Pro slavery absolutists, most of whom were militant southern democrats, blasted the Republican Party as a deadly menace that would deny these south access to the territories, and then attack slavery in the states where it existed. Throughout the 1860 president ial campaign, southern alarmists charged repeatedly that republicans were abolitionists and who plotted to unleash slave rebels and murder white women and children. It became a staple of the 1860 campaign in the south that republicans were allies of the abolitionist, john brown, who led an abortive uprising at harpers ferry, virginia in october 1859. At work here, in part, was the combative, over the top quality of southern political give and take. Rival partisans in the south regularly sought to identify threats to southern rights. They smear their opponents for displaying insufficient zeal, and blocking such threats, or for insidiously collaborating with the south enemies. It became standard procedure for political orators to warn that these south was menaced by abolitionists. These accusations likely hit home because white southerners depended upon a system of forced labor, even while they pretended that black slaves were happy and content. noise noise endless affirmations that slavery was a positive good for everyone involved never quite banished the fear that ferocious rebels might hide behind inscrutable black masks. White southerners were predisposed to be suspicious. Lincoln tried to quiet the souths hysteria. He explicitly condemned john browns raid on harpers ferry, and insisted that john brown was no republican. Lincoln did his best to show the republicans were not abolitionists, and he dismissed the likelihood of slave insurrections. But his reassurances never found an audience in the white south. Lincoln won the 1860 president ial election because he carried every free state, except for a divided electoral votes in new jersey. So he compiled a clear majority in the electoral college, and, as we all know of course, its electoral votes that count. He also asked far more popular votes than any of the other three candidates, but his plurality victory gained only 40 of the nationwide popular vote. He got no electoral votes, and hardly any popular votes, and the south. He was not even on the ballot in many Southern States. Few among lincolns supporters were outright abolitionists. As we have seen in articulate, ideological minority of republicans did consider slavery a moral problem. But mainstream republican moderates always said that slavery was beyond their reach. Lincolns victory shock to the south, throughout the summer and fall. Southern political orders had warned of catastrophe if republicans won at the ballot box. A symbolic humiliation added to southern distress. The south contended for a supposed constitutional rights, the right to take slaves to the territories. Hardly any southerners actually wished to exercise that right. But it was endlessly reiterated, closing off the territories to slavery would deny what they called southern equality in the union, and put the country on the high road towards abolition. So a spasm of panic and indignant outrage swept the south, especially the deep south, during the weeks after lincolns election. This was the only time in American History when the losers in a president ial election refused to accept the verdict of the voters. Southern secessionists and said took the fateful step of trying to break up the union, and establish an independent country. Supposedly responsible southern leaders, fueled the uproar that rabid deep south extremists fanned into a raging fire. Charges probably wielded greater power than any other southerner. He was the u. S. Secretary of the treasury, and widely considered the power behind the throne in president James Buchanans cabinet. Cobb recklessly exaggerated the danger facing the south. He warned that republicans were committed to immediate and unconditional abolition in every state, and that lincoln planned to build up a party in the south to promote insidious warfare on our family firesides. Cob certainly knew better, but his words intensified the panic among many ordinary white southerners. He and other key southern leaders, senators robert tombs of georgia, jude of benjamin, and Jefferson Davis of mississippi, apparently decided they could do nothing to deflect the mob mentality. They chose, instead, to amplify it. Before the election, republicans assumed that secession threats were a harmless charade, a mixture of bravado and posturing. After the election, most republicans refused to take seriously an outburst based upon what they considered ludicrous, and seemingly, deliberateness conceptions. Some republicans, however, did fear that secession posed a grave crisis. But they faced an uphill struggle when they tried to offer concessions. Republicans, for the most part, saw the crisis as artificial. They thought it had been whipped up by the south and only could be resolved when the south climbed off its high horse. Let me shift to my third topic, a glimpse of the book i have recently finished, and which you can buy in the back, if you are so disposed. It is called lincoln and the politics of slavery, the other 13th amendment, and the struggle to save the union. Make sure you catch that qualifying adjective, the other 13th amendment. This is not a book about the real 13th amendment, enacted in 1865, that abolish slavery. The one that was central to Stephen Spielberg film lincoln, which im sure many of you watched a few years ago. Instead, this is about an entirely different demand been, indeed, the polar opposite, that was proposed four years earlier. Hindsight obscures the would be 1861 amendment. The other 13th amendment was the handiwork of Thomas Corwin, and William Henry seward, two veteran republicans who masterminded its passage in the house and senate the week before lincolns inauguration. Corwin, and ohio congressman, had been a fixture in National Politics for 30 years. Seward, the u. S. Senator from new york, and formerly new york s governor, had expected the republican president ial nomination in 1860. But that didnt work out. It slipped away, much to stewards distress. If you want to see an image, you can walk a mile south on fifth avenue, and there is quite a nice statue in Madison Square park of a seated seward. Unlike most republicans, corwin and seward feared that southern secession created an imminent peril of war, and an urgent need to conciliate white slave awning southerners. They offered to make explicit what most americans assumed already was implicit. And they persuaded lincoln to get behind the amendment. Or Abraham Lincolns first inaugural address on march 4th, 1861, denied that he or the Republican Party intended to interfere with the institution of slavery in these states where it exists. He then announced that he could accept the constitutional amendment, which two thirds majorities of both houses of congress had just approved, behind the scenes, lincoln had quietly told his political allies in congress that he wanted the amendment to pass. Its specified that congress had no power to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed. The man destined to become the great emancipator, thus sounded an entirely different notice he took office. He pleaded with white southerners to stop and think and reconsider and state in the union. By the time lincoln offered these reassurances, seven states in the deep south had seated from the union, and had begun to organize a separate government, the Confederate States of america. But eight slave, states home to two thirds of white southerners, remained uneasily within the union, and no shots had yet been exchanged. Lincoln hoped to contain, and ultimately to reverse, the secession movement. Above all, he hoped to preserve the peace. We are not enemies, but friends, he insisted. We must not be enemies. At the moment lincoln was inaugurated, virginia was still in the union. By a decisive two to one margin, its voters, just a month before, had rejected secession. Robert eve lee, stonewall jackson, and jeb stewart, were not fighting in a war, because no war was taking place. It delicate to the Virginia Convention repeatedly warned against following the reckless league of the deep south. We, know of course, that lincoln proved unable to prevent war. Six weeks after his inauguration, southern confederates opened fire on fort some tour and the harbor of charleston, South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for troops. Rival waves of patriotic fervor swept both the north and the south. In the north, Many Democrats joined him to uphold the flake and restore the union. Stephen a douglas, lincolns longtime illinois arrival, announced that every man must be for the United States or against it. There can be no neutrals in this war, only patriots or traders. In the south, the new confederate nation suddenly became far more formidable. Most white southerners decided to fight for independence, when push came to shove. They might not have all thought that secession was a great idea, but when the question became, there is a war going, on which side will you fight on, there was a huge turnaround, especially in the upper south. Four additional slave states, virginia, North Carolina, tennessee, and arkansas sided with the deep south and doubled the new nations military man power. Both sides mobilized vast armies, and both stumbled into a war that proved more bloody and protracted than anyone could have imagined when it first started. In my judgment, secession was the most calamitous example of bad judgment in all of American History. It was designed to counteract a supposed threat to slavery, even though lincoln and his fellow republicans vowed that they would not touch slavery where it already existed. But when southern secessionist fractured the union and started a war, they removed their states from the protection of the constitution. They also killed the effort to amend the constitution, so has to make slave holders feel more secure. Instead, growing numbers of white northerners started demanding an end to slavery, the apparent tap root of the rebellion. A war originally waged to restore the old union as it was, was gradually transformed into a war to create a new union, in which slavery had no place. After lincoln issued his preliminary emancipation proclamation in september 1862, his secretary of the treasury marbled at the greatest collective insanity the world had ever seen. Had the slave holders state in the union, chase reflected, they might have kept slavery for many years to come. No party or public feeling in the north could have touched it. Instead, they had madly placed slavery in the path of destruction. In the end, secession destroyed slavery. The actual 13th amendment enacted in 1865, four years and one war later, specified exactly the opposite of the original version. The two 13th amendments, the one that did not become part of the constitution in 1861, and the one that did in 1865, bookend the foremost critical years in American History. So my book tackles an important subject that has long been hidden in plain sight. It cuts against the grain of what we think we know about the civil war era. I turn now to my fourth and final topic. I what we can learn about American History more broadly by taking a fresh look at the crisis that led to the civil war. There is a tension between history as it actually unfolded and history as it is remembered. Americans tend to read back into history what we would like to find there, a nation conceived in liberty, where slavery never really belonged, squadrons of slated riding the underground railroad to freedom as they outwitted their pursuers, and often were aided by public spirited white northerners. And, a Civil Rights Movement in the 19 fifties and 19 sixties that decisively ended Racial Discrimination and made american practices aligned with american ideals. By sugarcoat in a more complex and troubling reality, we trivialize the bravery and dedication of those who did challenge the status quo. A history that we can feel good about sometimes substitutes fancy for fact. Americans today find it difficult to accept that slavery once was considered normal and taken for granted. We thereby fail to see our country as it was. Our image prevents us from seeing a slave system that held most slaves without any hope of escape. Our image also has no place for a Republican Party and an Abraham Lincoln who pledged not to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed, and who knew that the law was on the side of the slave holders when they attempted to recapture the few slaves that did escape. We also tend to overlook the ugly reality that African Americans living in the free states of the north, before the civil war, were shamefully excluded from economic or educational opportunities, or from public life, and that most Republican Leaders were not about to confront the racial prejudices of their white supporters. So the other 13th amendment featured in my book runs contrary to uplifting national mythology. 21st century american sensibilities obscure the situation a century and a half ago. So too does the nearly universal tendency to exult Abraham Lincoln and to assume that he must have figured it all out in advance. It makes no sense to us that professedly anti slavery republicans, including lincoln, all could vote before the war that they had neither the power nor the intention of touching slavery in the states where it existed. We assume they must have been kidding, but we assume wrongly. We now honor lincoln as the great emancipator, but during the troubled months following his election as president , he was totally preoccupied by other matters. He faced the greatest political crisis ever to confront a new president , and he could not have spared a moment to think about the long run future of slavery or the many indignities and hardships suffered by american slaves. That changed. Lincoln played a large role in advancing the change. The war force the issue of slavery from the margins the center of attention. It made slavery vulnerable, in ways that could not have happened in peacetime. Quite suddenly, those white americans who knew that slavery sabotaged american ideals were in a position to start doing something about it. They had increasing motive to do so. Because black americans were eager to support the union cause and fight in the union army. The arithmetic of the situation was clear. It could be transformed into assets that enhance the union were effort. Lincoln spelled this out to disgruntled northern whites, that complained about emancipation. To whatever extent the knee grows should seize helping the enemy, to that extent it weekends the enemy. And his resistance to you. With a verte knee grows have had to do as soldiers Abraham Lincoln should remind us that moral complexity lies at the heart of the american experience. His career highlights tensions to which there are no easy answers. He weighed between conscious and law but he said the fugitive slave law must be obeyed. New black people in america were treated unfairly. He dared not come out squarely for equal rights. He hid always had been appalled by disorder and violence and bloodshed but as president he commanded enormous armies, and hope that the ends would justify the terrible means. Lincolns two towering achievements restoring the union and ending slavery. Made it possible to build a new nation, that did more closely reflect the ideals of the Founding Fathers. The constitution was amended three times between 1865 and 1870. To abolish slavery, to provide an expensive new definition of citizenship, to insist that slaves must treat all citizens equally, and to specify that Voting Rights could not be denied by the federal government or state government, for reasons of race color or previous condition of servitude. The new constitution to make a long story short, was shelved for the next hundred years. During the long jim crow era, the Supreme Court pushed the constitutional elements into a relevance. The nullification of the new constitution was a National Failing and not just the southern one. We are still far from repairing the damage. In state after state to take one example, Voting Rights are being insidiously eroded under the pretext of preventing non existing voter fraud. Can tell if its coming this way. Sounds like it is. An honest assessment of americas bittersweet mystery, obligates us to set aside any cherished myths. The promise of equality has never been so fulfilling. The struggle to achieve equality continues, but it often ends in heartbreak and frustration. The arc of history does not necessarily bend the right way. Lincoln salute to a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal eloquently defines our aspirations. We ought not how imagine however that his words actually squared with historical reality. It would be naive to think, that our current reality measures up to lincolns standard. So now its time for your questions and comments. Theres a microphone in the middle, i will be happy to hear when you have to suggest. Please. Think a very very interesting watcher. I have read two things that i think im going to infer from your comments we probably will take issue with let me pose them whether in fact you do. One is that the Republican Party was conceived as an anti slavery party. Therefore by its own existence, regardless of what policies those advocating wouldve been a threat to the south. The second was slavery if it did not expand into the territories would be choked off and die essentially if you are a pro slave you had to be pro expansion of slavery. Im entering that you probably wouldnt hear those id be interested in hearing your thoughts. Two very good questions. Its obvious i think there are scholars out there that would see this issue quite differently than i would. I placed delivered emphasis their when i introduced Joshua Gettings and his expensive version of what a real anti Slavery Movement should embrace. And the slavery in the district of columbia, preventing the interstate slave trite, repealing the fugitive slave act. Its absolutely conspicuous that lincoln and the Republican Party in 1860 when touch any of those issues. I go by what the record suggests. I see the Republican Party has a group didnt clued many people and i would include lincoln himself of course, but really he had moral qualms about slavery. As a political organization, it could not realistically hope to win elections by taking the advance stand Joshua Gettings in some of the other real radicals would have favored. That also relates to this territorial issue. My view briefly is this, by 1860 we areas in the domain that the United States owned that wouldve been suitable for plantations slavery were already occupied by slaveowners. The territorial controversy was overblown. It was something that both sides decided to puff up into something that they would care a lot about, but i guarantee what i mentioned briefly in my presentation, you cannot find any southern slave owners who wanted to take their slaves out to new mexico or colorado or montana. It didnt rain, he had a valuable slave youd like to have them in a place like mississippi, or louisiana our east texas, where you could get good return on your investment. Some scholars would jump in here and say how, and not talking about the possibility of overseas expansion. Lets take a look at whats secession was about. The moment the Southern State secede from the union, any hope of overseas expansion was ended. The confederacy did not have or never did have any kind of navy, any kind of prospect of acquiring a slave empire in the caribbean, or central america. I dont think thats a very sound argument either. Thats my brief ensor to your very good questions. My question is related to the first point. Maybe you could talk about more why it was so politically toxic for the republicans to take a more activist antislavery stance. It comes down to the matter of can we get the votes . In 1856, republicans ran their first president ial election. There was sometimes called a victorious defeat. Its interesting really the most recent time in American History, a new Political Party ever took shape and hold to supplant previously existing party. The republicans kind of came out of nowhere and suddenly the old party was no more. Republicans in 1856 only carried the various states of the upper north. New england and New England States influence states in the west including ohio. They also new york state because of all the yankees in upstate new york. They failed to carry pennsylvania, illinois and indiana. Because that, they lost the president ial election. The name of the game between 1856 and 1860 was to figure out a strategy to carry those three big states pennsylvania, indiana illinois that they did fail to carry in 56. The lincoln nomination to make a long story short, whats the result of a hardheaded calculation. How can we expand our peel, lets choose a person who on the one hand has a clear anti slavery record. But is also perceived as a moderate that comes from one of these three states. And it was highly regarded for the strong even have narrowly losing candidacy that he had run for years before. The name of the game was pennsylvania indiana illinois. There were not enough what you might call morally people who would give priority to the moral issue, to cavalry either of those three states. Lincoln was the ideal candidate to bridge between the folks who might give priority to other issues, but who still wanted to get rid of the slave power and you pick the Democratic Party from its stranglehold of the national government. To those points. Slavery was immensely profitable. Americas war of independence was fought mostly in the south. And the southern plantation owners supported independence. They knew that england was opposed to slavery. Theres a lot of talk about it that england eliminated slavery in 1825. These plantation owners new independence was the only way to hold on to slavery. The second point, is that this country, im sure you read w. Jake caches perk the mind of the south. The point that he makes there, is slavery anchored southern society. It was an aristocratic society, a very different culture than the rest of the society. A different banking system, if a slave was needed in order to sustain the white crackers, the White Working Class the hillbilly so they would remain peaceful, it was very successful. It was amazing how the south was able to sustain such are a socratic side without having to use terror, except on the slaves of course. If you were to put slavery up for a referendum in this country in 1960, it wouldve passed. Nobody opposed it. Aside from them nobody cared about slavery. And the second thing is if you put jim crow up for a vote this country today i think it would pass. Its deeply rooted in our culture. Let me jump in on your good points there. It should be clear from my comments, i dont see secession especially in retrospect as having not been a successful tactic ensuring the long run wellbeing of the slave system. Nothing boomeranged more spectacularly than the effort to protect slavery by breaking up the union and forming the Confederate States of america. Your point about doj cash in the mound mind of the south bracing mine a book that many of us are familiar with. Cash was this tortured some of the south who love the south, yeah it was also anguish by the things about the south that he could not accept. I think in the end it did him in. I think i have argued here tonight is broadly compatible with his view. If when push comes to shove white southerners looked at the situation said hey theres a war going on. Which Center Unified on . Youre gonna fight on the side of the yankees. Some white southerners did. There was 100,000 white southerners in the union army eventually. But, we forget at our peril, the Confederate States of america mobilized a far higher fraction of eligible men power to fight in their war than any other war in American History. Far more than were mobilized in world war ii, far more than was mobilized by the union army in the free states. So white southerners, many of them did not think succeeding was a good idea, but it became a very different question for them once the question was no longer, do you think breaking up the union is a good idea. No, its a terrible idea. Many folks in virginia, two to, one thought that was the case. But then, the question becomes, there is a war going, on which side will you fight on. For hundreds of thousands of white southerners, it becomes a different thing altogether. Yet, there are some exceptions. The state of West Virginia exists because the mountaineers west of the allegations wouldnt go with their state, and it would have been the same in east tennessee. Except the union army couldnt get to east tennessee until they needed the union voters from east tennessee to dominate the new state they were trying to create their. So we dont have a separate state of east tennessee the way we do have West Virginia. Lets get another question. The question is probably not answerable, because George Gallup did not live until a half century later. My question, is what percentage of the voting public in the south, which are white males over the age of 21, where slave holders . What percentage were not slave holders . And of the non slave owners, what percentage would have voted against lincoln, and why would they oppose that big . How is that in their economic interests, since they did not own slaves . Lets talk about the white south in the context of families. Approximately one in three families in the states that did secede were slave holding families. And if you include the states at the border that state on the union side, delaware, maryland, kentucky, missouri, it is only about one white family in four was slave holding. But this really kind of ties back to my earlier question. Lots and lots of white southerners who did not own slaves nevertheless felt that slavery was, you know, part of what they were accustomed to. And in many instances, what they aspired to become, the way to climb the ladder in southern society, was to own land and slaves. So i think it is true that throughout the white south, even though you might have had a tactical disagreement, is seeing a good idea, a lot of division of opinion before the war starts, much less after the war starts. But on this narrow question of, are we content to continue having slavery, or do we want to try and do something about it, the overwhelming majority of white southerners, 99 plus percent, wanted to hold on to slavery, and would have reacted, and did, react in a very hostile way to any suggestion that we ought to get rid of slavery. The north is much more of a mixed vague. I think it is true that probably majorities of white northerners did not feel any kind of moral links to about slavery. Remember, Stephen A Douglass got well more than 40 of the vote in the free states in 1860. And he was anything but a bleeding heart liberal. Many conservative republicans were on board. Pennsylvania, for example, was at least as interested in the issue of a protective tariff as it was in opposing slavery. Lincoln shrewdly made sure that the republican platform in 1860 included an explicit promise to increase the protective tariff. And that was magic in pennsylvania. Thetis stephens represented pennsylvania, but he was not the typical representative from pennsylvania. Nonetheless, we ought not ignore what i call the moral minority in the free states. They exercised influence probably beyond their numbers. They had a lot to do with founding the Republican Party. They provided what they would call the backbone, what we might call the soul, of the Republican Party. And they always, and this was women as well as men, made sure that their opinions were heard. They were later. It they were well educated. They wrote letters to newspapers. And they voted. And republican politicians, even if they were not themselves fully sympathetic, understood that they needed to keep these people on board. Next question . Decades ago, i was watching that program for one season, profiles in courage, based upon president kennedys book. And one week, they were profiling senator Thomas Corwin and his opposition to United States participation in the mexican war. Right. I had read before that he was for this amendment. So my two questions are, in supporting this amendment, because he was very anti war, it seems, so i would assume that by supporting this amendment, he was consistent with his anti war views. And number two, when he opposed a war in mexico, i didnt read much about it, do you think he anticipated, at least vaguely, the problems that would occur after the war, when we won . Because i dont think he thought we would lose. And we had all of that territory out there that would cause problems of extensions of slavery, and perhaps he had that in mind as well . You have just illustrated why it is such a pleasure to speak to a well educated audience. The fact that you picked up on Thomas Corwin and posed a key question about him, and your surmise in the second part of your question is right on the money. Corwin opposed the mexican war, because he feared that the addition of territory would lead to a dispute between the north and south that would potentially imperil the union. He wasnt so much anti war as he was pro union, and fearful that acquiring more territory would have unexpected and adverse consequences. Thats what you might call 2020 foresight, because the acquisition of territory from mexico is kind of the first big step down the slippery slope that leads to all the troubles of the 18 fifties, and ultimately to the war. So when corwin stepped forward in 1862 tried to hatch this constitutional amendment, he was very much in character. He remained dedicated to the idea of trying to preserve the old union. He is a fine example of a republican who cared much more about preserving the union than he did about what became of slavery. And its important to realize that corwin was not just some kind of lone wolf off by himself. One of the richer parts of my book, if i dare say, is this extensive correspondence between lincoln and corwin, where the old veteran corwin is advising this new guy in the arena about how to play his cards. And in many respects, there was a meeting of the mines. Lincoln and corwin did not see things identically, but they talked the same language. Lincoln was also opposed to the mexican war. Thats correct. Thats correct. Lincoln thought he had ruined his political career by being against a war that ended up proving to be quite popular in his home state of illinois. He went back home after his time in congress and decided to buckle down and start being a lawyer, and assumed that that would be his future. And it was not until the whole kansas situation began to rear its head that lincoln got really interested in jumping back into the political arena. Did lincoln also, when he was a representative, opposing the mexican war, seeing the potential problems with slavery, an extension of slavery . In the case of corwin, it is very explicit, and its his primary motivation. In the case of lincoln, it has always struck me that its more but you might call trying to gain the political upperhand. Blaming president polk for getting into an unnecessary war, and hoping to frame the situation so that lincolns wig party could do better in 1848. He had no problem with eagerly supporting one of the victorious generals from the mexican war as the whip candidate in 1848, and Zachary Taylor indeed won that election, with lincoln as one of his supporters. But in the, end there was no appointed Office Available for lincoln. There was some talk that he might be appointed to have some kind of official position out and one of the territories. If that had happened, we would never have heard of the guy. He stayed in illinois, and then come 1854, the wheel turns and lincoln rekindles his political career, ultimately, with spectacular results. Thank you very much. Thank you. You said that before summer, virginia had a vote, a popular vote, and they voted against secession, the populists. So after some tour, was that a legislative vote . That forced virginia to succeed . Can you tell me exactly what happened, tell us exactly what happened . The second question is, at the shabbos library awhile back, in harlem, the name of lincoln was came out, and it was soundly booed. I know that lincoln wise, union first, and inks labour is second, and early on he was talking about colonization, because he thought that the races could not get along well together. I wonder if you could Say Something about those two things. Thank you. Let me deal with them in reverse order. I had read something about some mention of lincoln having been booed at the library. And i was very sorry to hear that. You can tell from my presentation tonight that i take a nuanced view of lincoln. I am not one of those that is going to give you an image of lincoln as somebody who is ten feet tall and knew exactly what was going to happen 30 years before it happened and you came to office with a plan in mind to get rid of american slavery. But i do admire lincoln very much. I think that lincoln is, without doubt, along with George Washington and fdr, one of the three greatest american president s, and nothing that i have said tonight should take away from that. I do know that some folks, in my view, go off the depend and say that because lincoln didnt see the world exactly the way we might today, that therefore he is morally disqualified and so on and so forth. But im not going to go there. On the question of virginia, i am fighting a siren here, but lets see if i can work around it. There is a fat book at the back called reluctant confederates, upper south unionists in the secession crisis. Let me summarize in one minute some of the argument there. That is a book about virginia and North Carolina and tennessee. On the cusp of the war. In virginia, the vote in early february 1861 was a vote to elect delegates to a state convention. The convention was going to be held and also to indicate whether they wanted the action of that state convention referred to a separate vote of the people after took place. The voters in virginia elected an overwhelming majority of pro Union Delegates. Among them as i mentioned no doubt a bit a pro union guy. They also voted by a two to one margin, to refer the action of the back to the people. They want to happen in the deep south the state conventions and grab the ball and run with it and said we have now decided to decide the state is out of the union and not give people the chance to respond. During the period from late february into april the Virginia Convention is meeting but the majority of that convention were pro Union Delegates and we are looking for some kind of accommodation. We wanted some kind of sectional piece that hoped secession could somehow be reversed. They were not exactly by any means allies of lincoln. But there was interesting back to furtiveness gauche and going back and forth. The man in the middle was new yorks seward. He was exactly in touch with people on the Virginia Convention. He tried arranging arrangements with them to try to prevent the hotheads in the deep south from doing something reckless this thing out of control. Everyone is aware if fighting started, this kind of conditional union of the border states such as virginia probably disintegrate. Thats of course exactly what happened. There certainly was an effort to try to keep virginia in the union. It was an extremely high stakes issue. Virginia was the largest state in the south, larger white population than any other state, and a large black population than any other Southern State. Virginia couldve kept out of the confederacy the confederacy were not been anywhere near what it finally did become. So next. Thank you so much for speaking. In your opinion, was the civil war inevitable and what point did take a turn where it is no longer available. Heres your thoughts about seward, if he had won the nomination in 1960 if lincoln lost the election, if theres any way that couldve all been avoided. Thank you. All reverse your questions also. Lincoln was chosen as a candidate with the expectation that he was electable, he might have greater appeal in the states of the lower north then republicans and not carried in 1856. He was ideally positioned, and generally fell to be less tends to its radicalism and seward. He used his famous phrase about a higher law than the constitution. You get also spoken about an eerie precip conflict the managers from the lower north, the hardheaded republican guys who knew how to count said we want lincoln not seward. Its ironic that seward was in this awkward position, lincoln immediately tapped him the same way obama did Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state. And he accepted. He was in this position of wanting lincoln to reach out explicitly, to be more conciliatory towards the people in virginia. Lincoln was in charge. Lincoln certainly didnt have been on the territorial issue. Ultimately brought him around on this constitutional amendment thing. There was a great deal of high stakes negotiation a week before the inauguration. Clearly the fingerprints of seward are all over the inaugural address that lincoln delivered. I literally the last couple days he substantially revised his inaugural address to give it more of a kind of we want to keep the peace kind of tone to it. And the actual author of the one that lincoln improved at the end of the inaugural address about how we must not be enemies and his final appeal, we must be friends. The part of the question, i dont know how to answer quickly. I will say this. When you cannot imagine american slavery having been gotten rid of without some kind of violent upheaval. The system was too well entrenched. It was too strong. I strongly believe its the south what of state in the union, slavery wouldve lasted a long time. Who knows how long. Lincoln once said in his debates with douglas, he thought that perhaps slavery might and in the next hundred years. We have the warrant available . If you feel as i think for every person here feels, it was important to get rid of american slavery. This is that with a great deal of pain and personal difficulty. Just like lincoln for using words to solve political problems. The United States has run itself into such a blind alley, and the slave system was so strong i think that was the only way it couldve been uprooted. Not a direct answer to your question but at least along those lines. Yes. I found this very interesting. Secondly i will keep it brief or the gentleman behind me. I recently heard about something called cots annapolis. I guess during the civil war, lincoln was not just focused on slavery that everything was going on. Is it true we almost went to war with britain . Over the shipment of cotton . Well things were tense with britain especially in the early days of the. When a union ship stopped ship of the union navy stopped to ship on the high wing seas. We this ship was the trend to trend crisis was probably the moment we had the greatest danger of possibly britain and the United States coming to were. He was secretary of state, and its one of his huge among several accomplishments during his long tenure in office. Not just under lincoln but under lincolns successor andrew johnson. Seward having played the most Important Role and putting the trend crisis back in the box. Part of it too was logistics. Thing headed up in november december. The brits decide to show us what a show of force. Send some soldiers out to north america to show they were serious. By the time they got the st. Lawrence river was blocked by ice. That to land their soldiers in Portland Maine and ship them by rail to montreal. Which undermined the muscle flexing effort to show that you cant fool with the brits. That. Realistically seward and lincoln understood one or at a time is plenty. Theres plenty of historical precedent if a civil war became tangled up with an international war. They had their hands full fighting the south. After the war, they squeezed the french hard because of maximal and down in mexico. During the war, they were content to make unhappy noises. Thank you. I think respectfully, you and we are missing something about Abraham Lincoln. He was a dual capacity lawyer who understood and new and appreciated the rule of law. He was also very much imbued with the spirit of the law. Benjamin cardoza one stated justice is a concept far more subtle and indefinite than any that has been shielded by mere begins to roll it remains to all extent when everything is said and done simple yearning of what is high. Lincoln understood what the law was. He also had the idealism and the spirit, and the motivation, to move it in its best direction. That is why i would not merely name a rambling can as one of the three greatest, but the greatest of all of our president s. Thank you and thank you especially for that wonderful quotation that you clearly have memorized of cardoza. Your version of lincoln my version of lincoln are pretty much in sync. I did argue, lincolns famous gettysburg address was aspirational. This is what we ought to become. I faulted lincoln who in my view kind of lost the extent to which the Founding Fathers were already on board. Thats what lincoln wanted to see happen. We should remember yet good political motive to do so. It was very important for republicans to say we are not dangerous revolutionaries, we are not trying to cause some great disturbance. We stand with the Founding Fathers. Stand with George Washington and thomas jefferson. They want to limit the spread of slavery, we want to limit the spread of slavery. Lincoln was very astute. He wanted to portray himself as a good constitutional conservative, he also i think youre right he was an idealist was spired for himself, and his country. Theyll be Something Better and the future would open and store to possibilities, never suppressed under the situation that existed during his life. Thank you. Quick question. Id like to know why its called the civil war and not a war of secession. The question of what the war should be called as always rattled around for the most part, northerners during the war talked about the rebellion. The war of the rebellion. Southerners though it became more of the pandered postwar, like to talk about the war between the states. I think the term civil war has been kind of sort of a muddy middle that comes between these two sectional labels that were used at the time. Hi, i just wanted to Say Something about the question raised about england. I think its important to recognize oregon knowledge that, at that point, the civil war was not a war to end slavery, and england and france, there was a lot of debate or whatever about whether or not to side with the confederates because of the choking off of the cotton from the south. And lincolns emancipation proclamation, in essence, turned it into a war to end slavery, and it undercut that possibility. I think that is part of lincolns thinking and maneuvering. The other thing about lincoln is i would ask you, many people assumed that the civil war would end quickly, with all of the advantages of the northern states. Do you think, if that would have been so, that it would have ended quickly, that we would know lincoln as the great emancipator . If you follow the logic. Okay. Let me start with the second part. People on both sides were convinced the war would end quickly. If you live here in new york, you saw a demonstration, an outpouring of patriotism and volunteering such as had never been seen before in anybodys memory. Huge parades, thousands and thousands of volunteers marching down the street with flags and bands playing. And it seemed inconceivable that the south could last very long against such evidence of northern power and determination. The problem is that the exact same thing was happening down in the south. There was a tremendous up swelling of patriotic enthusiasm for this new nation in the Southern States. It was a nation that hadnt existed before, but this was the era of new nations, and the Confederate States of america was, i would argue, most definitely a nation for a couple years, and it enjoyed broad Popular Support from the people whose opinions mattered, the white males of the Southern States. And as i mentioned before, they volunteered, ultimately some of them were conscripted, but volunteered so that more white men of military age turnout to fight for the confederacy than for any other war in American History. So with the war have turned out differently if it ended quickly . Would it have been a war for emancipation . No it would not have. But it was not in the cards. Neither side understood what it was coming up against. Both ran head on into a deeply rooted Popular Movement that was far more powerful than either side counted on. And thats what opened the door to having the war for the old union as it was become a war for freedom and for emancipation. It didnt happen right away. And when it does happen, in september 1862, with the emancipation proclamation, the preliminary one, you are quite right. Lincoln has the situation in britain very much in mind. He suspects, correctly, that this will help to at least appease British Public opinion at a time when many of the cotton mills in britain were running desperately short of cotton. And there was some feeling in britain that it might be a good idea to at least offer to mediate, play an honest broker, indeed there were confederate diplomats who are ready to try to make an overture, if leeds invasion of maryland in september 62 had actually worked out. So yes. Thats a good question. Yes . If, during the preliminary election period in 1860, the southern political establishment was afraid of the republicans and lincoln, as you indicated, and they thought the worst could come through the Republican Party winning the election, why did they not support Stephen Douglas and have a unified party that might have won the 1860 election without all the consequences that followed . This is yet another example of my pleasure in talking to a well informed audience. Stephen a douglas was, without doubt, the most charismatic and popular politician in the Democratic Party. He certainly was the only candidates that gave the real Democratic Party a fighting chance of holding the white house and winning the election in 1860. But the guys in the deep south could not stand douglas. They were blinded by their own by what happened in 1858. Douglas had sided with the Republican Party to oppose the admission of kansas into the union as a slave state. In so doing, he had hobnobbed with seward and wade and henry wilson, and all those republicans, and the guys in the deep south would not forgive douglas. He became, in their, is a trader, even though, in my view, and i think in your view as well, Stephen A Douglas was something of a hermaphrodite who knew what he needed to do to hold on to his position in the free states. And he also still retained something of a following in the slave states, unlike lincoln. Douglas was on the ballot in all the slave states. But the managers, the Democratic Party leadership in the south cut him and insisted on running their own candidate to split the democratic vote. And the result was obvious. They couldnt do the math on the electoral college. Right. Though, it can be argued that douglas may have done about as well, and perhaps better than he could have done, in the free states, because he didnt have to carry the deadweight of the deep south with him in the election. But it still wasnt enough. The republicans get really high marks for their management of the 1860 campaign. They had the right candidates. They ran him in exactly the right way. Lincoln got the nomination, stayed at his home in springfield, said nothing, did nothing, all the other republicans were out there, hooping it up, the republicans created what was called a hurrah campaign. They invented what were called wide awakes, tens, and ultimately hundreds of thousands of young men who marched around in the dark, many of them right here in new york city, wearing oilskin capes, holding torches. They were the wide awakes who were showing that the Republican Party was the party that appealed to young voters, and the up and coming. Abraham lincoln was the rail candidate. noise noise noise noise lincoln, who wanted nothing more than to escape the drudgery of the farm and to stand on his own feet and become an educated, independent person, his run for president as the rail candidate, the guy who split rails, and that showed that he was a man of the people. Yes . I love your talk. About the ideas of nullification into position, going back all the way to virginia kentucky resolutions, especially callan, to what extent did those ideas impact the civil war . And to what extent do you believe these ideas still stand today . For example, with states rights and, quite apart from slavery, isnt this an enduring philosophy that started way back when, and continues to have vigor and influence . Well, there have been reports but there are some secessionists and texas. I would have to tell them it didnt work out real all the first time. They might have to rethink it. My hunch is that we have got a president ial candidate running now who will, probably within the next week or two, be advising many people who live in states that dont have a chance to express themselves in a way that he would consider proper in the election that maybe they should consider succeeding also. The history of secession and states rights does have a long history. The virginia and kentucky resolutions, the idea that there ought to be something that a state could do if it didnt like what was going on to get out, there is a question of where this ultimate power might lie. John marshall, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, said the Supreme Court had the ultimate repository to decide whether or not something was constitutional. South carolina went to the precipice in 1832 and said we dont like whats going on. We are getting out. They took a look behind them, and no one was following, and they decided to back off. They got some concessions. The same thing happened again in 1850. South carolina, once again, said we cannot stand this. We are getting out. Here we go. They took a look behind them and, once again, there was no support. In the states where they hoped there might be support, so called unionists, 18 fifties style, won the elections. So georgia and alabama and mississippi would not join South Carolina in 1850. Partly, for that reason, thats at least one of the reasons that many republicans in 1860, said we have seen this before. Its a charade. Every so often, South Carolina goes off the deep end. They will probably do it again. Its not a cause for concern. Well, folks. It was a cause for concern. In november 1860 and december and january 1861, suddenly, the other states in the deep south fell into line behind South Carolina, and suddenly, youve got a situation that is way out of control. And this is what william h. Seward was so frightened about. Even though most republicans were only slowly waking up and saying, the conventional wisdom in the Republican Party had been, dont worry about this talk about secession. They are not serious. They know it would be self destructive, suicidal, they know which side the bread is buttered on, they wouldnt dream, in the end, of doing this. Seward, and some others who had a close year to the ground, another of them right here in new york city was former senator hamilton fish, they said, oh my gosh, this is serious, its dangerous, we have somehow got to persuade our friends in the Republican Party to at least try to reach some sort of accommodation with these sensible people that are left in the south. Otherwise, this whole thing has the potential to run us into territory where we dont want to go. And about cale whom, your view of cal . What do you think . Any thoughts about kellan . I am not one of those who would say that just because, in retrospect, john calhoun stood for many things that we disagree with that we ought to rename calhoun college. Thank you very much. Professor croft, that was great. Really entertaining and informative, thank you so much. Thank you, paul rome arrow, and think all of you in the audience for being such a good audience and giving such good questions. We have books for sale. We still have books for sale, so if you want to get him to sign your book, please do so. He will stay appear inside some books for us for a little while. Thank you for coming, and we hope to see you next week. I youre watching American History tv. Every weekend on cspan 3, explore our nations past. Cspan 3, created by americas Cable Television companies as a public service, and brought to you today by your television provider. Weeknights this month, we are featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan 3. The dwight the eisenhower memorial dedication ceremony takes place on thursday. The keynote address by Eisenhower Memorial Commission chair senator pat roberts, and recorded remarks by former secretary of state condoleezza rice. The memorial honors the men who served two terms as the nations 34th president , following his service in world war ii, as Supreme Commander of the allied Expeditionary Force in europe. Watch friday, beginning at eight eastern. Enjoy American History tv this week, and every weekend, on cspan 3. Coming up this weekend saturday at 10 pm eastern on real america. Three films about the u. S. Census of 19 forties, fifties and sixties. Sunday at 2 pm eastern, a look back at the 1918 flu pandemic, and now it altered American Life that mirrored living through the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. Then at 7 pm, the 19 62nd president ial debate between john f. Kennedy and richard nixon. At 8 pm eastern on the presidency, the dedication and at the base of capitol hill, speakers included in the world designer frank perry, former secretary of state, senator pat roberts and president eisenhowers grandchildren david in susan eisenhower. Exploring the american story. Watch it on cspan 3. This year marks the 150th anniversary of the ramification of the 14th amendment to the u. S. Constitution. Up next on American History tv, climbs in University History professor oval vernon why was essential to ratify after the abolition of slavery. This is hosted by the u. S. Capital Historical Society is 45 minutes. Now with great pleasure, i get to introduce our first speaker oval vernon