Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hispanic Americans In Congress 20240712

Representatives and a member of the advisory meeting on the records of congress, to which the legislative records reports twice annually. He is a longtime friend and supporter, as well as a source of guidance to the center through his service on the advisory committee. Matts here today to discuss hispanic americans in congress, 18222012, which was published last year. This is the third in a series that has come out of the house office of the historian under leadership, the previously published volumes being women in congress 19172006, and black americans in congress, 18702007, published in 2008. The total page count for these three volumes is 2573, and still counting. I believe there is a fourth volume in the works. [laughter] so, this series obviously represents a very substantial effort for which were all grateful and eager to hear about this latest publication and thank you so much for joining us, matt. Matt thanks for inviting me. Its a pleasure to be here. Pleasure to see so many faces. Your reference to page count was excellent because i was recently talking to and this is the book, by the way, a hardcover version i was recently talking to a major trade press editor and she was telling me about a few of her authors, one of whom is very well known historian, and she writes 800 page history books. And she relays the story the author told her of a friend who bought the authors book and says this is just a fantastic book. I cant put it down. Im taking it to get dressed and im taking to bed. And last night, i was reading it in bed and i fell asleep. And the book dropped on the bridge of my nose, and now i have a bruise. Well, the editor thought that this was a teachable moment for the author. No more broken books. No more broken noses. Thats the new book rule here. This book definitely violates that rule. It is a nose breaker. In fact, i think it fits the Arnold Schwarzenegger role, you get your workout when you lift it up. But its meant as a reference book, like the earlier books in this series on women and minorities in congress. I think one of the interesting things that happens when you write about individual members at some length, the essays are about 15003000 words, is that you get what looks like, at first, seemingly disconnected dots. And the dots began to make a bigger picture. Certainly, a larger picture emerged as we were working on this publication. To give you some quick background on the book, as richard mentioned, its the third in a series. In some ways, its a book thats very much like its two predecessors. Women in congress, we published the latest addition of that in 2007. And the book on african americans, we published in 2009. These were all published by congress. The prime mover behind the original edition was lindy boggs of louisiana, who was a great proponent of house history ended a lot to promote the history of the institution. Those books were like pamphlets at the time because so few women and africanamericans had actually served in congress. A second edition was published of both those books in the early 1990s. And a volume on hispanic americans was added. At that point, we didnt have a history operation in the house, so the library of congress produced the first edition, which appeared in 1995. So, the second edition of hispanic americans, and we are working with richard on asian and Pacific Islander americans, which is a few years down the road, but that will wrap up the series. It mirrors the structure of the books on women and black americans in congress. There are individual essays about every member introduced in chronological order, with contextual essays that set them in generational groups. These are fortified by appendices and historical images and artifacts, some of which people around the table have helped us find. And its aimed at an Upper High School, Upper High School Lower College audience. And some of the storylines do mirror one another. Women, africanamericans, hispanic americans, in each of those storylines, theres a turning point where they become surrogate members. And theres also a similar part to the story in terms of how the groups are integrated into congress over time. There is a pioneering generation that has to work their way into the institution. Theres generally a long apprenticeship phase where they gain seniority and get on good committees and work their way up into leadership. And then theres kind of a mature integration phase, and that usually happens when theres a Critical Mass of enough members to create an issues carcass and drive a legislative agenda. But in many aspects, this story is really distinct from women and africanamericans. For one, its a story that stretches all the way back to 1822 to Joseph Marion hernandez. , first hispanic american in congress shower first hispanic americanrst hispanic in congress. The century before women, half a century before we see africanamericans in congress. The story is driven by American Foreign policy, expansion continentally and globally. The acquisition of florida from spain, the louisiana purchase, the annexation of texas, the war with mexico in 1848, the spanishamerican war. Aboutrst century is also democracy, representation at the borders of american democracy. About individuals who political scientists called statutory representatives, the constitution didnt really contemplate, and how they were incorporated into congress. How congress not only created that office, but often gave them very limited and circumscribed powers. And then the fact that these individuals, for the most part, were representing majority hispanic constituencies. And the question of how these people would be incorporated or whether they would actually be incorporated into the body politic. An interesting aspect of the this story is up until world war ii, two thirds of hispanic americans in congress were the statutory representatives, mainly delegates from new mexico and then resident commissioners from puerto rico. So from a research perspective, this book is a little bit different, too, because unlike the fields of womens history and africanAmerican History, hispanic, latino studies doesnt have as many monographs or political biographies of the individuals who are covered here. And in this aspect, the field is somewhat undeveloped and splintered. So much of our research relied on primary sources, paper collections in santa fe and albuquerque, new mexico, local and regional spanish and english language newspapers. We relied heavily on the Hispanic Division, which was fantastic at the library of congress. Georgette dorn and tracy north, resources bothto and puerto rico, and also helped us with the storylines in the book. We used the periodicals room to look at a number of newspapers, particularly puerto rican newspapers. And the ever helpful san juan star, which was the only one of the three that was in english. And then at national archives, to capture the story, particularly of puerto rican resident commissioners and territorial delegates, we went into a number of different record groups. The department of interior territorial papers, record group 48, the records of the office of the territories, record 126, and then, in addition to that, the center for legislative archives supplied us with a lot of images, original documents, and certificates of election. So, the book is structured, again, like the volumes on women in congress and africanamericans, around several long generations or story line breaks. The first runs from 18221898. The era of continental expansion in the u. S. The second breaks down from the spanishamerican war to world war ii, an era of u. S. Colonial expansion, global expansion. And then the third from world war ii until through the Civil Rights Movement up until 1976. The hispanic caucus was created in december of 1976. And that was another turning point. And post1977 is the modern era, after the founding of the caucus. I thought it might be useful to go through a couple of the individuals along the way and trace the storyline. And im happy to take questions at the end. Im hoping to leave 15 or 20 minutes for that. The first individual, Joseph Hernandez served a very brief term. Hes an incredibly interesting person, more for his career outside of congress because it was so short. But he was one of these individuals who helped bridge the states cultural and governmental transition from spanish colony to u. S. Territory. He had fought for spain prior to the turnover to u. S. Control. And then he later fought for the united states, particularly against seminole indians in several of the conflicts with local indian tribes. He earned and he lost a Great Fortune on several plantations. He owned hundreds of africanamerican slaves. His life was complex. This guy was a slaveowning indian fighting politician who it turned out would be cut from the jacksonian cloth. And he embodied attitudes toward statehood and representation that many of the delegates in the 19th century later would. His term of service was very brief, but it set a precedent for later territorial delegates. He was the very first delegate from florida. So he leaves at the end of the 17th congress. His focus, for the couple months he was in, was the house, largely internal improvements. And this is the storyline that follows throughout the 19th century, too. He focused on a postal road from Saint Augustine to pensacola. Like a lot of the territorial delegates in the 19th century, he had no committee assignments. So, his powers were very limited. He could introduce legislation, he could cajole members, he could lobby, but his powers on the floor were circumscribed. This story takes a turn with the war with mexico in 1846. This is really the first major turning point in this story and it raised questions for congress , particularly, about how territories with culturally unique populations acquired from the massive mexican secessions in the wake of the war and under the provisions of guadalupe hidalgo, how these would be represented in the federal government and eventually incorporated. This individual is the second hispanic american to serve in congress. He serves 30 years after hernandez. Padre jose gallegos. And this is a really interesting story that we came across, originally turned onto it because he founded in heinz precedents. Selected in 1853. Hes actually the second delegate from the new mexico territory. There was an anglo delegate that preceded him. Gallegos comes from an interesting background. He has been a legislator in the Mexican Assembly representing nuevo mexico, which in the 1840s was a frontier land. He had become very adept. He had been a former priest and after the transition to american rule, had been defrocked. An american bishop came in and chased him out. And so he switched to a career in politics. And he comes to washington in 1853, and he does not speak english. He knows very little about the american political system. He knows very little about the party that he is elected under, the democrats, but he is very adept at finding out where the levers of power are. So, his first problem is that he , literally and figuratively, is a voiceless legislator. He is relying on members of the house to translate for him and this tended to be members who were from missouri, at the other end of the santa fe trail, who are bilingual. His friend was John Smith Phelps of missouri who acted as his informal interpreter on the floor. This wasnt going to look work longterm and gallegos knew he had to change this. He went to the head of the Judiciary Committee and head of the territories and they both went on his behalf and pleaded with the house in 1854, first of all to pay for a translator, and then second, ok, you dont want to pay for a translator, at least let him bring one on the floor. Give the translator the privilege of the floor. In both cases, the house rejected those. The chairman on territories went before the house and said let him have an interpreter in order that he may be more in factually understanding in the proceedings of this body. Mr. Gallegos does not understand one word of the english language, and this is not for his personal convenience but for the convenience of those he would he represents. The house rejected the argument. What happens is he has to have his speech translated in english, or have members help him on the floor. Again, the language barrier is not the only impediment. He has to lobby other members to help him push legislation. 1855,s election again in but this election is contested by another hispanic from new mexico who had run against him, miguel otero. And that contested election really kind of opens the window new whats happening in mexico politics in the 19th century. Partse gallegos really was of a dominant faction of his panos in the district who favored kind of the receding spanish system. They had latched on. They had kind of gained revolutionary ardor during the mexican revolution, and that was kind of culturally and politically where they were coming from. The other side was represented by otero, who was from a business oriented, the ricoh class, and that class attended tended to align with the american political model, which had been introduced in new mexico. Whereas gallegos was kind of a pillar of this whole native ruling class, otero belonged to this group of, many of them, otero included, entrepreneurs who were openly aligned with the americans. And heres a picture of otero. So, there was a contested election in 1855. It came down to disputed votes. What happened on the floor was an event in july of 1865. Gallegos is defending himself through an interpreter, through a clerk of the house, reading his statement on the floor, and he stresses his personal ties to his constituents, describing himself as native to that very mexican soil. He emphasizes the fact that american mexicanamerican constituents that mexicanamerican constituents chose me as the representative. And he judges with the sneers and the just that they responded to his english really to be insults against all Nuevo Mexicanos. I am the rep resented of of my people. Otero, in stark contrast, comes to the floor, and he speaks in english. He addresses the house. And he repeats salacious claims against gallegos, going back to his days in the priesthood, and he accuses gallegos of being a creature of an alien political culture, the Mexican Party faction, which he described as indulging great hostility against the institutions of the united states. In contrast to diagnose t gallegos too, otero describes himself as unmixed spanish dissent. As part of the Nuevo Mexicano elite, and, quoting him again, the only security from the perpetual discourse of mexico, i confess i have always been attached to the institutions of this country. And to have been taught from childhood to look for this quarter for the political regeneration of my people. This was a strategy that later territorial delegates like o tero would adopt because they believed it was a link in statehood because they believed Congress Needed to be convinced of Nuevo Mexicano readiness for selfgovernment, and also their whiteness. So theres an interesting, multilayered debate going on here. And otero typified hispanic delegates from new mexico in a number of other ways. Mariano, would become the first hispanic to serve as governor of the territory in the late 1890s. And these delegates, the hispanic delegates for new mexico, represented eight of the 10 hispanics in congress in the 1800s, they had much in common. They all came from upper class backgrounds, from wealthy, landed gentry, welltodo merchant families. Most of them were interrelated by blood or marriage. Most had Prior Experience in Elective Office in the Territorial Assembly in mexico. Many were successful entrepreneurs. In fact, the interesting thing is that the delegates office, in many respects, is a launching pad for their later career in territorial politics. They served in washington for a brief term, go back in the district, and that furnishes their resume are there hold territorial white office or to push forward their business interests. And like other new mexico politicians, but especially future territorial delegates, otero and other delegates, such as Jose Francisco chavez, had a connection to the santa fe ring, which was the first and perhaps most notable political machine in new mexico politics in this era. The group was dominated politics in the latter 19th century, counting nearly every governor of the territory and most federal officials from 1865 through the late 1880s. What were these delegates interested in . Largely the same thing territorial delegates from many territories, nebraska, kansas, wherever, desired. And that was infrastructure improvements, postal, roads, railroads, those things that would spur trade and business and population growth and lead to stability in the territory and put it on the road to statehood. The one outlier in this story of territorial delegates is ronnie a lot of pacheco of california, who was the first hispanic american to serve as a full representative with Voting Rights. Chaired the private lands claim. Like new mexico delegates, hes interested in internal improvements in california. Its important to realize with the exception of pacheco, all of these delegates were constrained by these institutional limits to their powers. New mexico delegates could not serve on a committee until the house changed its rules in 1871 and allowed them onto one committee, the very prestigious coinage, ways and measures committee. [laughter] territory witha a lot of mining interests, but not exactly the appropriations committee. They served brief terms, usually just one and office. And then when someone decided they wanted to spend a second term, that set off a fight that could be brutal and led to messy, contested elections. So, these individuals were very reliant on relationships with Key Committee chairs or powerful people in the house. We came across a wonderful newspaper quote from the times that summed up the situation this way. Tories really are to be pitied. They are like children under a bed stepmother. The various vote or beggars relying entirely on the help of members, who have more than they can do in trying to help their own constituents. The the second phase starts with the spanishamerican war. The central question for congress would become how or that were never incorporated into being in the u. S. Body politic should be represented in the u. S. Legislator legislature. Geostrategics, for reasons and economic reasons, were loath to give it up. Act whichasses the sets up Colonial Government for puerto rico. Islands status ambiguous. They were neither autonomous nor were they citizens of the u. S. , and the Supreme Court was no clearer on this issue than the act itself. The language of one of the socalled insular cases that tried to define territorial , the territorial inhabitants were foreign in a domestic sense. Commissioners found themselves in the curious position the territorial delegates had been in. Their powers were greatly circumscribed. After presenting his credentials , first resident commissioner, he was recognized by congress. The expectation was he was going to lobby officials in government, not just congress. Ambiguity led egatau floordeny d privileges until these privileges began to be extended to him. Eventually, he got the second resident commissioner committee assignments. They tended to act more like diplomats and lobbyists than legislators. Important wase rivera, who was a senior statesman in 1911. He had been a negotiator with the spanish in the 1890s. He was a political leader in puerto rico. He was a renowned poet, newspaper editor, a man of high culture. And he iso the u. S. In this position where after having struggled for so long to carve out a measure of puerto rican autonomy in the waning spanish empire, he now has to face incipient u. S. Colonialism. He had a sense of pragmatism and he understood in a basic way that puerto ricos chances for complete sovereignty, certainly nil. Is lifetime, were he was going to promote home rule. Sought to shape shape the second provision of the jones act. It somewhat liberalized the colonial regime. It still kept power concentrated in a council that was appointed by the u. S. President. The governors of puerto rico were still appointed by the u. S. President and could override the act of the puerto rican legislature. Rivera came onto the floor and said give us the experiment which we ask of you that we may show that it is easy for us to constitute a stable republican government with all possible guarantees for all possible interests. He supported the second jones act as a steppingstone to later reforms. He passed away shortly after passage of the act. As it does so often, the u. S. Senate comes very late to the story. More than a century late. This is the first hispanic american senator. It is a symbolic appointment. He is appointed in late 1928. He is in poor health and he passes away shortly after that. , hisis most interesting work in new mexico in the territorial government and later after new mexico becomes a state , he pushes hispanic civil rights to the state level. It is a fitting appointment that highly symbolic. Of course, another first is Dennis Chavez who is the first hispanic american to serve in both chambers. He is known best for his long senate career. Hes one of the highestranking hispanic americans in congress in the 20th century because he chairs three congressional committees. One in the house, he goes to the senate and chairs the Public Works Committee which is a major part of his career. His career, which bridges the new deal and into world war ii, makes in transitional figure in the story. He really is the hispanic First American member of congress we can point to and can say here is somebody acting as a surrogate representative. Hes advocating for people far beyond the boundaries of his district or his state and speaking for hispanic americans nationally. He does this with his work on the Employment Practices commission and advocating for greater puerto rican autonomy in the 1940s and into the 1950s. This storyline follows after world war ii. The storyline we are familiar with with women and africanamericans is tied in to the larger push for civil rights in the postworld war ii era. There are two principal strands post1945. The first involves a mexican strives toward rights on the mainland u. S. Enabled by chavez and other hispanic congressmen. The second was puerto ricos evolution from a territory to commonwealth which was made possible by a line of reformminded puerto ricans. These strands were widely divergent at the beginning but by the end, they come together. Resources are pooled, agendas that had been local are nationalized, there is a large grass roots movement, groups like la raza, which is a more radical political movement, come together. When hispanic americans serve a long institutional apprenticeship, the length of Service Increases for them. They receive more prominent committee assignments. Just a handful of the people here who stick out in this time the longest serving resident commissioner from puerto rico and the principal architect of puerto ricos move to commonwealth status in the early 1950s. He was widely respected i house by house colleagues. He had a very close working longtimehip with puerto rican governor who was the son of munoz rivera and that partnership produced the commonwealth change in the 1950s, which increased puerto rican autonomy. Another individual here henry gonzales, he gets his start in local politics, housing issues in the san antonio area and is involved with the panamerican Progressive Association in texas. This launches his career in progressive politics. In 1956, he becomes the first mexicanamerican elected to the texas senate. Twice, he filibustered measures that would have ray segregated that would have ray segregated re texas public schools. That earned him a lot of attention. A great quote in Time Magazine it may be some that can chloroformed their conscious but if we fear long enough we hate and if we hate long enough, we fight. He runs for governor in the late 1950s and is trounced but get but it gets him name recognition and he becomes a viable candidate for a special election in 1961 in a San Antonio District and comes into the house and serves in the house for nearly four decades. Best known for his service in the house banking committee, he chaired it in the 1980s and early 1990s and he passed a lot of important housing and banking reform. A critic of the big banks and also a proponent for many years of opening up the fed for greater transparency. Another individual is a lot like z in terms of coming up through grassroots politics, he was one of the cofounders of the Community Service organizations, a statewide organization that pushed hispanic interests. He is elected to the l. A. City council in 1949 and is the first mexicanamerican to serve on the l. A. City council since the 1880s. His welcome was a little rough, but he fit in and was very important in terms of a lot of programs, city programs and housing to hispanic americans. He was elected in the house in 1962 and served 30 years. He rises to a very high position in congress and becomes one of the appropriation cardinals, chairing the Treasury Postal Service and general government subcommittee. I want to end here briefly by talking about the last period in the book which is post1977. This is the main page of the website where the entire book is available online. This chapter, we titled strength in numbers and challenges in diversity. It starts with the creation of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in 1976. Five members established the caucus as a legislative Service Organization that would follow, track, and influence policy affecting americas hispanic community. Unlike other congressional caucuses, over time, the diversity of the caucus somewhat limited its legislative effectiveness. It was open to members from both parties. Its roster included members from across the country. There were competing interests at work that made the caucus act oftentimes like an information clearinghouse than a legislative vehicle for moving legislation through congress. Regional differences often splintered the caucus. Hispanic american members were divided from the 1980s on Immigration Reform and trade policy in the 1990s such as nafta. Perhaps the most striking feature of this era is a numbers game going on. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights act in the 1960s and courtordered redistricting the which began in the 1960s opened new avenues for millions of hispanic americans. The Voting Rights act profoundly changed the face of congress in terms of africanamericans, but also in terms of hispanics. In the case of the latter, two thirds of all hispanics who have ever served in congress were elected after 1976. So that is tremendous growth. We are now up to 102 hispanic members who have served in congress. In 1965, when the Voting Rights act was passed, there were just five hispanic members of congress, four representatives and a senator. In the 113th congress, there are 30 in the house and three in the senate. The numbers have gone up and these members have chaired powerful committees and subcommittees, they have authored important legislation, they have been party leaders, directed National Party organizations, mel martinez, former senator, and they have held cabinet positions. The hispanic population in the u. S. Has grown from 6 in 1982 to 16 according to the 2010 census. As their advocates win powerful seats at the federal level, hispanic americans have become one of the most influential voting blocs in the country. But gaining that representation has never been easy and likely wont ever be easy or simple or straightforward. The experiences of the hispanic members in that post 1977 period illustrate there is no one person or caucus that can drive the agenda or determine the needs and desires and aspirations of all hispanic american voters. This was very clear after the emergence of a separate Congressional Hispanic Congress hispanic conference, which was composed of republicans in the early 2000s. The caucus began to break over cuba policy and so now there is a hispanic caucus and conference and they are divided in a partisan fashion. This is perhaps the clearest sign that political debate is alive and well, but regardless, based on this long history, there obviously is much inspiration that hispanic members and those who study them can draw from the rich history and hardwon victories over the years. We have 15 minutes left for questions and i would be happy to answer any. Raise your hand so we can pass the microphone and pick it up on the video. Out of curiosity, how did you guys define hispanic for the purposes of inclusion in this volume and was there a specific definition or know it when you see it . Matthew we relied on the Hispanic Division of the library of congress. New members of congress as to whether they identify themselves as hispanic. The interesting thing is in the 1980s, it gets a little more complicated because tony of california who is of portuguese descent lobbies to get on the hispanic caucus. Actually goes back to the roman definition of hispaniola and claims portugal is part of that area that would have been referred to as hispanic. There are a couple of members who come to his aid Bill Richardson of new mexico. And he is allowed onto the caucus. But it creates a problem in later years because there have actually been a dozen members of portuguese descent if not more who have been elected since then. And its a matter of whether they identify with being hispanic or not. Some do, some dont. So we rely on the library of congress. Another question we had very early on was you have the philippine resident commissioners from the early 20 th century and many of them have hispanic surnames, almost all of them have hispanic surnames. But, in working with the library of Congress Asia division and Hispanic Division, we bowed to cultural preferences and we are told filipinos regard themselves as Asian Pacific islander, so they will be in that book. We relied on the guidance of the librarys divisions at that point. But it is trickier, obviously, than women or africanamericans. You can get on a slippery slope of cultural preference. And the book itself, we have also been asked, i should add, latino or hispanic . We use the term latino, latina in the text itself. The title was passed by congressional resolution and it was the title that the hispanic caucus wanted in the legislation, so thats the title we went with. Hispanic is also the census term still used by the federal government. Yes, maam . With regards to the need for translators, you mentioned a lot of the translators were from the east, and therefore im finding , this also occurred in new mexico, but in southern colorado, those hispanic representatives had no english background and that territory of colorado would not pay for a translator, so they had translators from the east, but then there were differences in political language that those translators could not help them with. Can you tell me when the government started paying for translators . Matthew we dont know that the government ever paid for translators. Based on anecdotal stories weve come across, he is relying on the friendship that he has struck up in particular with missouri representatives who were bilingual. It did not appear he was paying for it, or not in any way that we could track out of any house fund like clerk disbursement reports or anything like that. He may have been paying for it outofpocket, but it is hard to know. What are your thoughts on a translator from the east versus may be a hispanic hispano who served in prior legislatures . Is there a disconnect . Do they have to go through some kind of litmus test . Matthew i dont know. I would imagine gallegos in particular, he is the one who relies on the translator, but s who were noter fluent in english either. But he studied english and had a tutor, but there is no record of him ever appealing to the house for a translator or paying for translations out of his office allowance, at least not that we are able to track. But someone in gallegosposition who was familiar with territorial politics under two Different National regimes, i think would be savvy enough to overcome differences in translations. I also have a question on weights and measures committee. You said the house allowed the territorial delegates to serve in the committee. What year was that . Matthew 1871. 1871. Matthew that was the one specific committee they could serve on for about two decades. The committees are opened up a bit. After a while, they can serve on the territories committee. After that, theres another liberalization that opens up in the 20th century, but for a while, it is very circumscribed. I dont have a specific question on weights and measures during this time for the government, but in the colorado territory during the 1860s, they are changing weights and measures so they are no longer southern colorado could no longer use the spanish variance. Matthew same thing no doubt in new mexico as well. El paso county. Matthew any other questions . A general question in the process of doing the third volume, as you get later, have you had very much overlap in women and africanamericans or between the three volumes . If so, how has that changed the way you have talked about those individuals . Matthew in some aspects, the hispanic caucus and the black caucus do team up in the 1980s on certain issues. Not so much the womens caucus. I cant say that it has really changed the way we have approached the book. The story in that regard, they cross in terms of Party Association more than caucus in one way or another, but again, and i mentioned at the beginning, there are these very clear patterns of how each of these groups are introduced to the political process integrate into the institution. It may take many more years in one case for one group for one stage, but there are three very clear stages and, for instance, for women, for a very long time, the early women members of congress up to world war ii very purposefully, with the exception of rankin did not embrace what you would call a womens rights agenda. In fact, they tried to minimize gender distinctions and felt that was the best way to work their way into the hierarchy. It is kind of the same way with the hispanic american members up until chavez and the postworld war ii period, but theres always the tension and degree to which you are going to act as a surrogate representative. Henry gonzalez was a cofounder of the congressional hispanic american caucus, but he is so turned off by activists, particularly la raza, which attacked him in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that he questioned a lot of the tactics that are used by activists and eventually questions the legislative agenda of the caucus moves towards in the 1980s to the point where at some point, we dont know when, he stopped paying his dues. He is no longer on the caucus records. We have yet to find the press article that says today, Henry Gonzalez left the hispanic caucus, but we know he lost interest. Thats a story that is familiar with women. They are not a monolithic block. So there are those similarities, but i would say those are more general ways in which these individuals interacted with the institution and, in fact, the stories of the caucuses interacting with each other, theres not so much there. In the 1850s, you mentioned gallegos had no experience with the american political system. Can you talk about what political system they were working with . Matthew he came straight out of new mexican politics when new mexico was a province of mexico. Question,me, my real how difficult was the difference in changing for them from the american political system . Matthew he wasnt familiar with the National Democratic party and the Democratic Party in new mexico had its own policy agendas. There is a great book that talks about this howard lamarr, which talks about politics in the southwest. He focuses on new mexico, but to make that leap from territorial politics to the National Democratic agenda, i think, was tough for him. The government was a guy by the name of david meriwether, who was a long time politician from back east and served as something as a tutor for gallegos. Gallegos came and consulted him and we know this because meriwether records this in his memoirs. At once you got him into legislative environment, he understood how things worked in d. C. He certainly knew who the Key Committee chairs were and he was convincing enough to get them to go on to the floor and argue on his behalf, even though it didnt work. But there are parts of the story that we really have to theres a lot of gaps to the story. One more question. The difference between english law and then spanish or mexican law that they had to work through . What might they have encountered with that . Matthew thats really a territorial transition question. Im not so familiar with how to answer that. I think some of the justices had to work with that in the territories. Matthew the court justices. Yes. Well, i believe our time has about expired. Thank you for that splendid presentation, and lets give him a round of applause. [applause] you are watching American History tv, 48 hours of programming on American History every weekend on cspan3. Forow us on twitter information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest history news. Every saturday at 8 00 on American History tv, go inside a Different College classroom and hear about topics ranging from the american revolution, civil rights, and u. S. President s. Thank you for your patience and for logging into class. Professors transfer teaching to a virtual setting to engage with their students. Gorbachev did most of the work to change the soviet union but reagan met him halfway. Reagan encouraged him. , madisonm of the press originally called it freedom of the use of the press. Lectures on a history tv on cspan3 every saturday at 8 00 eastern. Lectures in history is also available as a podcast. In 1915, woodrow wilso