Previous book that was mentioned on Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass. That book prompted me to think the process by which slavery was destroyed during the civil war, and ended up producing the book, you mentioned, Freedom National last year. This is the rethinking of that process of slavery destruction. Before i continue the more i continue to think about the more i have to revise my freedom previous thinking. This book already revises some things that were in the Freedom National book. But they were all trying to do, all seem to be doing is complicating the usual, simple narrative of how slavery was destroyed. There are several of them out there. The most familiar one i suppose, lincoln freed all the slaves with the stroke of a pen by signing the emancipation proclamation. The more elaborate version of that, lincoln understood from the time he was a young man that it was his destiny to free the slaves, but knew that he had to wait until the American People came up to his advance to thinking about it. Another one thats become surprisingly popular recently is that slavery was abolished during the civil war inadvertently, that it was an accidental byproduct of the war that no one ever intended. Is outlandish but its there. And the most popular one among historians and the one most influenced me when i was a young historian is what i now call the skinner box theory, whether thats emancipation can be understood as through the principles of behavioral psychology as a simple stimulus response argument, that slaves run the union lines, thats the stimulus. When enough of them run to stimulus union lines, the stimulus is overwhelming and lincoln is forced to sign the emancipation. What ive been saying especially in the last book in this book is that those tend to be a historical. They dont appreciate the impact, for example, a special of the Antislavery Movement in formulating an antislavery agenda that was politically viable and constitutionally reasonable to americans who believed, almost all of them who believe that the constitution did not allow the federal government to go into the south and abolished slavery in the state where it already existed but that being the case, how can you have a national antislavery politics . Beginning in the 1830s, abolitionists began to think about this problem and formulate a series of policies that they believe will surround the south will with what they call a cordon of freedom. They will suppress slavery on the high seas. They will refuse enforcement of the fugitive slave clause in the north. Return all enforcement to the states themselves. That the northern states will be free straits truly free states. Abolish slavery in washington, d. C. And then slavery from the territory. Will allow new slaves to come into the union. They will support, not support slaveholders whose slaves rebel on the high seas and the like. They believed they could surround the slave states with what they called a cordon of freedom, till in a popular metaphor of the day, slavery is like a scorpio scorpion surrouny fire would ultimately sting itself to death, that they would restart the process of statebystate abolition that end in 1804 win new jersey abolished slavery. At the time folks thought the process would continue. It had been abolished state by state by state in the immediate aftermath of the revolution, and after new jersey did in 80 metaphor, people assumed the next it would be delaware and maryland and the like. But it didnt. By the time it got to be 1860, 65 years since any state of all is slavery. The point of the scorpion sting was to restart the process and so thats what im going to do. Im trying to say you cant understand what goes on during the civil war unless you understand the project that Abraham Lincoln and the republicans came into the war, intended to do. What he meant when he said that he wanted to put slavery on a course of ultimate distinction. What we do know is that in the first months of the war, lincoln is attempting to convince the border states to emancipate through state action. And even in the midst of war, that doesnt i know you say that i states do that, but kentucky, for instance, does not. Delaware does not. Even though we are very few enslaved people in delaware. And so how likely, i know this is counterfactual but im still going to ask anyway, how likely would it have been that slavery would have been extinguished that way, given that these estates of absolute are not willing to go in that direction . No, i dont know. Nobody knows because if things had been different, things would have been different. But the truth is that i dont think any interpretation of slaverys demise works without the war. The war changes everything. War makes things possible, right . I dont think the emancipation proclamation is capable without war against its a war measure. I dont think slavery wouldve died on its own without a war. I dont believe that interpretation. I dont think the scorpion sting wouldve worked without a war. On the other hand, wars dont automatically lead to slavery abolition. They never did in the past and theres a reason to think it would have during the civil war, had it not been for the fact that the republicans begin implementing these two very different policies right from the start of the war. The one that we are family with, military emancipation, slaves run to union lines and the union will emancipate them. Thats what armies have always done during wars. Happen in the american revolution, happen in the war of 1812, happened during the seminal war. The union start doing that very early during the civil war, by the summer of 1861. Its emancipating slaves come into union lines spent but its not universal, emancipation and their. Thats right. Military emancipation as it initially is intimate is more like the military emancipation from the revolution, from the were taking 12. They are following the practice. But you need to know thats what they are doing. You just cant assume again that the history of emancipation starts in 1861. It doesnt start in 1861. If you dont know the history, you dont know how military imitation worked in the past come in the american past. Americans were familiar with it. Joshua giddings published a book on the civil war in 1867, detailing the process by which the Union American forces in florida in emancipating slaves in the late 1830s during the seminal war, and explains why it was that we. They know what military emancipation is so that certain expectations that slaves will run the union lines. They responded initially in ways previous records and use the language and the justifications for military emancipation, your military officers using during the seminal war. The loss of war allow this, they overrule state laws and such. And its opel to know that because if you dont know the precedents, then you dont know what happened prior, dont know the history. You wont even recognize whats going on. So thats one of the things im trying to do here, reconstruct the prehistory, the assumptions about emancipation going into the war. And that as i say is therefore, you can see then why in the spring of 1862 when the second constitution act is radically shifts its military emancipation to a much more aggressive plane where theyre going to adopt a universal emancipation then you consider gone somewhere else. Theyre using it in a way thats different from the way it had been used in the revolution and the war of 1812. But theres a criticism of lincoln at the time. Hes not really enforcing the second act. Act. But he is enforcing it. That seems to me to be in controverted. Letters go from lincoln to Benjamin Butler in new orleans, as soon as Congress Passes a second act. Get going. Consider them for a. What is the emancipation proclamation necessary if there is a second act . The second act in and of itself applies only to slaves were already in occupied union locked. It also assumes it authorizes the president to issue a proclamation that will expand military emancipation to cover all areas in rebellion spent lets turn to the whole issue of the republicans and the scorpion sting, or plant itself. That plan requires gradual emancipation. Republicans are accepting gradual emancipation. How much is that plan a product of republicans in general, or just a small group of republicans . Because we know that there are abolitionists who certainly would never approve of a gradual plan. Plan. I would back off from that statement. I think theres a tendency in the literature to confuse the media an argument that the process of emancipation must begin immediately with a call for immediate uncompensated emancipation to be the starting assumption garrison knows the constitution doesnt allow the federal government to do it. So hes either an idiot welcome he doesnt want to abide by the constitution at all. He sees it as a proslavery document. And, therefore, he has two different ways of getting around it. In the middle of the 1830s his newspaper proposes a series of constitutional amendments to surround the south with a cordon of freedom. A constitutional amendment to abolish slavery in washington, d. C. , to repeal the fugitive slave clause. The difference between garrison and most abolitionists is most abolitionists believed that can be done by mere congressional statute. The constitution does allow those but its the same project. It just thinks it has to be done by constitutional amendment. Its odd to think he is proposing a series of constitutional amendments to do this but not a 13th amendment as we know it. No amended could absolute abolish slavery everywhere. The way theyre thinking is estates will do this on their own when, once their surround it will dawn on them, theyve lost the kind of artificial support that the federal government gives them by constantly allowing them to expand, i protecting slavery and protecting runaway slaves, and that sort of thing. The assumption all along is that the thing that is going to have to happen is to get the federal government to position itself so that the states will resume the process of abolishing slavery on their own. So i dont think even abolitionists assumed that if thats right, if garrison is saying this is the way its going to be done, then notwithstanding his rhetorical commitment to the immediate uncompensated emancipation include understands in practice its not going to happen that way. Its going to happen a different way. You know Frederick Douglass very well. Would he also be within that cant . No. Frederick douglass occupies, in a way, the other constitutional action of abolitionists movement. There are two extremes, constitutional extremes. One is the garrison, doesnt allow the federal government to do anything at all. The other extreme theres this very small but Ingenious Group of people who make the argument that the constitution is, in fact, an antislavery document, that it does, in fact, empower the federal government to do what most people in the United States, including most abolitionists dont believe it has the power to do. If you start from the assumption its an antislavery document, which is where Frederick Douglass into doubt, then anything short of that is a failure on the part of the government. So he is very critical of the republicans and the Lincoln Administration during the war because he believes the constitution in fact does allow them to be more than they are doing. But very few people, in fact id be surprised if you could find any historian today who believes that the constitution was an antislavery document. The dispute is really, how proslavery was it, you know . So it does tell you how in the middle of the 19th century the political position you take always depends on a constitutional interpretation. Its what they call political theorists call constitutionalism, the language of politics. Getting this plan of strength elation, are we to assume the Southern States were correct in their assessment, that they were in danger . And that they were at least, they had an argument . Again, one of the consequences of assuming emancipation sorts agencies to what is it makes the session inexplicable. But if, in fact, the republicans are committed to this policy of surrounding the south with a cordon of freedom, and i think the evidence is quite clear that thats how republicans were talking and thats how secessionists were talking but youre talking back and forth to one another in congress think the secession source in italy because if we dont leave theyre going to translate a scorpion until it kills itself. They are not going to come you. Theyre going to surround us. Everyone understood the terms of the debate. They leave because they wouldnt submit to the cordon of freedom. Thats what secession was all about. They believed like most americans in the middle of the 19th century that their future depended on expansion. And in some ways we talk about civil war as a war of what kind of the union the states was going to begin. A union with slaves or without but it was also a war over what kind of empire the United States would be. Based on freedom or an empire based on slavery . They are assuming, all operating for more a list in peerless functions in the sense they need to and can expand. If youre going to stop us of expanding, you going to open up the floodgates the futures slaves by refusing to return them and youre going to drop an antislavery said bill in between maryland and virginia by abolishing slavery, suggesting sucking up fugitive slaves and refusing to return them. Youre threatening us. We going to have to pull back from the border states and the border states lose interest in slavery and they will go. It is certainly true that kentucky and delaware hold out in ways that nobody expected, but on the other hand, by the end of the civil war, five states abolished slavery. Maryland abolishes slavery. Louisiana, tennessee, missouri and arkansas abolish slavery. Now, if one of the problems with the usual interpretations that focus exclusively on military emancipation and the emancipation proclamation and ignore these of the policy, the one that caused the war to begin with is that they have no use for the 13th minute. Theres no explanation for a 13th intimate is necessary. If you believe as i do, increasing historians are in come to realize that emancipation was not enough. Then what does it take to get the 14th amendment . What does it take to get any constitutional and ratified . 500,000 sites are emancipated by the civil war by the time the work into. But the number of slaves freed is a necessary very helpful in getting a constitutional amendment. What you need is threefourths of the states to ratify. In 1860 there were 18 free states and 15 your not even close to having an amendment ratified that will abolish slavery. Over the course of the war West Virginia secedes from virginia and is admitted only after it it is required to abolish slavery as a condition. Two more free states are admitted to the union, and after intense pressure why lincoln after the emancipation proclamation became a special in july 1863, using the emancipation proclamation, the states to begin to abolish slavery and by january 1865 when Congress Finally gets that amendment out to the states for ratification, the balance of power between free and slave states has shifted to medical and are now 26 free states and 10 slave states. One more state iwatches slavery and 279 and that is threefourths. In that sense its the cordon of freedom policy. The policy designed to get states to abolish slavery and its critical to completing the process of slavery destruction. The plan is based on damage done to these states economically. You have him to them in. They cant expand. They cant grow economically. Are we doing a disservice to the selective by forgetting that slavery is more than an Economic Institution . Delaware certainly is not benefiting much from slavery. I said in my last book i think the republicans when naive about the economic weakness of slavery. That it was as like so much stronger than it was. I think the republicans, i dont think the kind of people who make arguments about the weakness of slavery, or a slave our conspiracy, which these arguments are usually held up in some more or less robust that it is brutal and inhumane. The truth is that the people who make one of those arguments are most likely to make the other arguments as well. So slavery is wrong because its economically backward, because it generates a slave our aristocracy, and because it is brutal and inhumane. So theyre not mutually exclusive arguments. Theyre part of a series of arguments. But what we see is even given a benefiting economically from slavery, there is an incentive to keep people enslaved. Its a social institution as well. And so thats not changing. And so why wouldnt they still hold onto it might not be the pillar of the economy, but it would still oh, i agree. Without a war i cant imagine slavery having been abolished. This for me is the tragedy of the civil war, not that it was pointless but that it was necessary. I cant think of any other way. There is an argument out there that slavery would have died anyway, people still say that. They say it on the daily show. But i dont see it. I dont see it. And so if this is a republican plan, and the south decide to secede because they realize they were in big trouble since the Republican Party is in power, did it really matter who is elected president as long as that person was a republican . So is it about the Republican Party, or is it still about lincoln . Its about both. I think its about both. A modern republican spin to a more conservative republicans are more radical republicans but one thing that struc striping ai pointed this out in my last book, republicans divide on a lot of different issues things that we are familiar with civil war that are not religiously. The divide on the homestead bill. They divide on the taxation issue and the financial issues. They divide on the Pacific Railroad act. And those things get passed through coalition of northern democrats and republicans. On a meditation issues, on every issue, every time and emancipation comes out or slavery comes up, the votes are virtually unanimous. Republicans are looking for the ground on which all republicans can stand, and its a remarkable series of unanimous vote from the first of the war all the way to the end, on washington, d. C. And emancipation, on slavery in the territories, on the fugitive slave law, on every the revision of the military orders and the like. Every time it comes up they are unanimous. Its impossible for me to imagine in the circumstances that lincoln is going to step outside of that. No matter how moderate or radical or conservative he is, there is a discipline in that party on the issue of slavery because thats their issue. Lincoln is committed to the party. He will say, you know, if itd been me i wouldve preferred that the washington d. C. Emancipation that maybe wouldve been more radical. But this is the way its being done and i am going to sign this bill. And you see the other way. Radicals will say have you been up to me they wouldve been no compensation in this bill, but this is what the party wants and this is what were all going to vote for. They are going to maintain the unity on that, and they do. Lincoln is important because hes very effective war leader and the very effective holding enough democrats in the war coalition, and he does certain things. I dont think we fully appreciate, for example, its lincoln starting in july 1863 who begins to pressure those states to get slavery abolished. And he starts writing a series of letters to the governors of kentucky and tennessee and louisiana same at this done, get this done, get this done. He does not divorce him because he doesnt think congress can say you must slavery. So by the end not even to a seceded the state . He doesnt believe he can do the trick seceded the state. So what he ends up with by late 1863 is, in frustration, is i figured it out. Every state i comes back into the union must endorse all the laws and proclamations that have been passed in the years since they left the union, and that would include the compensation act. That pulls it exists for about three weeks. It exists for about three weeks because almost immediately after he makes that announcement, at the beginning of the congressional session in his september address, republican congressmen introduced the 13th amendment. The first state to abolish slavery right after that, first state is arkansas in early 1864. And it bypasses the lincoln proposal and instead adopt the language of the proposed 13th amendment. But its the 13th amendment on the table that provides the model for the states to begin abolishing slaves pics of works both way spent and why was he not more involved with getting were not involved at all it seems, getting the measure passed . Is it because he does not have to say anything . Because he really doesnt get involved with passage of the 13th amendment. That law until the second time in the house. I dont know. I dont know the answer to that. President s dont have any constitutional role in the amendment process spend but he gets involved spent he does get involved. Thats whats unique. Its not unusual that he did not get involved the first time around. Its the house, and nobody knew until the end of that, several monthlong debate that the democrats were going to have to stopping all they needed was a third of the votes in one of the two houses and that is what ended up happening to stopping in june 1864. And its after the Republican Party commits itself to that come because hes a party man. He is renominated and then the 13th amendment. I think we could talk just for a moment about the whole propaganda and have different that was from the perspective of republicans who are pushing the cordon of freedom, and southerners. One of the things id like for you to talk is is the consensus in the south i think sometimes we believe that everyone in the south is on board with whats happening from the slaveholders. Is that the case that they have so much power that people are now questioning what theyre doing . Actually thats a tough question. There are a lot of Division Within the south over secession but it doesnt mean, being opposed to secession doesnt mean youre antislavery and it does mean you dont accept the argument. One of the points i tried to make in my last book, and more pointedly in this book is about if you want to understand, if the war is caused by conflict over slavery you need to know what slavery is, because you need to know what a debate over slavery is going to look like. Its crucial you understand that americans in 19 century understood slavery to be Property Rights, so that thats what differentiated slavery from other forms of inequality like the patriarchal subordination or in danger servitude like slave labor or racial does commission. There are different forms of inequality. Property had a very particular resonance in the middle of the 19th century, and the debate between antislavery northerners and proslavery suffers is trained in those terms. And the language coming on the databases on indian. Madison says we do not want the property within. So this becomes absolutely the fundamental foundation for constitutionalism, which is to say antislavery poverty. The sites are. Com additionally protect the property. They are not constitutionally protected property, but there are certain right. Otherwise how could the slaves go to the north . The fugitive slave clause of the federal government to protect the Property Rights created by the laws in the south. So the argument against this act is that it empowers the institution. The federal government cant abolish. On the other hand, the government can be protect your property. It has no qualms to teach in. That debate is remarkable for Property Rights in human beings. Theres no such thing as a cant to touche director rob b. At the human being. Arguments with stephen douglas. The only way to say, in that case, for example with the principle of popular sovereignty is to assume you can make property added the human being. Only a state can do that in this territory is the creature of the federal government. You are a state and secession. If youre a northerner, yeah. Okay, whether you are in the north or the south. There some other little im perfectly happy to say he added that is what you want me to say. I think it is provocative. I fully understand as far as northerners work is her the law of treason therefore applies and that is very in ports and. Im not interested in pain not. But we do have laws. And given that particular action, is that not treasonous . Was a treasonous for the american colonists . Thats what im saying. For the british days. Is since we are a nation. I think of the treason as an individual act. They are declaring their independence. I will let you slide on that one. But if the north thinks this is treasonous, why cant they go after these enslaved laborers . They dont need the law of treason. They do go after them and they dont need the law of treason. People actually inhibit them because under the law of treason, the principle of the errors cannot be tainted. You cant hold the property of a convicted traitor beyond the lifetime of the trader. Ms go back. That is why when i said before it is easier to free a slave state to confiscate a house because a house everywhere mechanize his land and homes as movable property. Once it has taken these to be returned. You can actually burn it down if you need to burn it down. But if you use it and its not buried down it goes back to the owner unless they are of treason. Even if they are complete to eventually the heirs get it. That is what taint is. You cant taint the descendents. The fact they are claiming the slaves doesnt apply because slaves are constitutionally protected form of property means that is a relevant. It may apply in the border states. It may apply in states that have not committed treason and you have to find a different way of getting a slavery of most days. The meshwork complicated problem. Which is one of the things i want to say in these two books. One of the complications is there is more than one policy besides emancipation. Another race you cant look at what is going on in the border states as evidence of how lincoln are the republicans think about emancipation because they understand the border states are legally different place. They havent succeeded in the succeeded in the lives of where to apply and its not clear. It is commonplace, right . You look at lincolns telling fremont and missouri truly righteous order to conform to the first confiscation act. Does that tell you think it was supposed to emancipation . Not necessarily because a supporter stated no one knows what you can do with a border state. He is our do you shoot the border and associated states. But they do interesting things after the proclamation. They allow decent lifetime who are still enslaved actually border state of allowing them to enlist in the union army and its very much against what these local people want. But they are doing it anyway and theyre getting away with it. How is that possible . I mean, they have early trading. They are. Its very controversial. People dont understand this about the emancipation proclamation. The emancipation proclamation didnt apply to the border states. Thats not quite true. The emancipation proclamation of the provision didnt apply. In practice you can see slaves being freed all the time in the border states. But technically it didnt. However, the proclamation of the union army to black soldiers and that did not accept the border states. Very quickly, the union army is setting up dozens of recruitment camps in maryland and contact you and its calling of habit and they do it over intense opposition of the slaveholders in the union army from those states. In places like kentucky where they are fighting with Union Soldiers from missouri or michigan or illinois because the union is explicitly trying to destroy and undermine slavery by actively recruiting black man into the union in return for their investment. I think im going to ask one last question before we open it up to the audience. Could you please define citizenship quick no, i cant. All i can tell you is it is crucial. Its a crucial part of the debate and part of the debate is what it means to be a citizen. In this sense it is not an issue until slavery becomes an issue because the prospect of emancipation raises the prospect of citizenship and that raises for Many Americans the question of what you need to be a citizen. That is why the 13th amendment is passed finally ratified into separate 65. 1866 to get the first Civil Rights Act to finding blacks as citizens that they were entitled to the privileges. Which doesnt take. It actually follows the attorney generals order from late 1862 declaring that dred scott decision was invalid and blacks are back citizens. But that may not hold so they pass a law. As we all know, Southern States send out narrowing that down. The emancipation provokes a struggle over what it means to be citizens. Its not possible for me to define what citizenship means. All i can say is to struggle over what it means is provoked by emancipation. If you have a question now, would you please go to the microphone. There is a make on each side. Could you make your question brief. No statements. And if professor oakes would make his answer even preferred. I am sure kucinich. My question you said there were a number of people who believe slavery would eventually eradicate itself. Was in a brand like it one of those people who believe that as a believer in technology as he was hit by a tech elegy but eventually make slavery too expensive at this point just before the war in technology would replace the slave and it would take a hundred years but it would die off . No ,com,com ma i dont think he thought like that. He doesnt talk much in terms of political economy that way. Towards the end of the 1850s he gives a few speeches on the superiority of slave labor. As this law partner pointed out, intended to be moral. If anything, he seems to be slavery so economic or powerful that it has to be stopped legislatively. But its not like William Seward who goes to the other extreme and makes the most complete argument that slavery is doomed once you surround a matter what diet its own accord because its not economically feasible. Lincoln didnt talk that way very much. Theres some indications here and there that he believed he won since early on slavery should be allowed to die a natural death. The 100 year statement is a passing offhand remark he makes the i suppose this slavery were to die in the most peaceful, most gradual way imaginable, it may take 100 years. The next sentence is that god works his own way. Every time he says that, hes arty indicated. The only time he actually comes and proposes a timetable is in the november 61 delaware proposal. There he gives the states the option of requesting gradual emancipation taken as little as five years, as much as 35 years. I prefer it all over in 10. The closest he ever comes. 35 years is a long time. Yeah, yeah. For the last one. It would be young people who were poor in the day the law passed. The bulk of them in that programmer freed immediately. And its the option. But he cant dictate what the terms are. Okay then, we look at the proclamation of amnesty and reconstruction. Hes talking and not about gradual emancipation, but he is talking about a new system. Hes talking about some being that is occurring over a period of time. He refers to it as the ability of the slaveholder and the layperson to work their way into a new relationship. He is talking about apprenticeship. Even after the proclamation. No, yes, i agree. I think it is a mistake to think he abandons the idea of gradual emancipation that state by state abolition the same as military emancipation. It is immediate and uncompensated always. Statebystate abolition, the best way. However you do it. A few months after that when arkansas does that immediately, he writes a nasty people say, you misunderstand me about gradual abolition. I thought that is what works best for you folks. If you want to do it immediately, go ahead. Gradual abolitionists like compensation. If thats what it takes, do it that way. But do it. From my point is even beyond abolition. When they are free, technically he is still suggesting or at least he wanted jack. He is trying to get louisiana to abolish slavery. He doesnt believe he has the constitutional power to tell them you must abolish slavery. One where you might do it is to free them immediately but havent apprenticeship system. Well, that is what most white kids in through. Your apprentice can tell you 22. Youre required by law. The difference if you make it legal, then you are requiring a master to educate the slaves. The apprentice. Do we know thats not what happens because actually when the war is over, africanamerican children are apprenticed and parents are having a heck of a time trying to get authority. It is part of his attempt to get states to abolish slavery because he knows military emancipation is it going to do it. In fact, they dont do it that way and he abandons the proposal within a few months because the state start dominating immediately. Hes very frustrated by december because he hasnt had a single state to do it. Louisiana is particularly frustrated and he proposes that. Maybe you could do it this way. We have to take him at his word when he says a few months later, my commitment is i just wanted you to abolish slavery. If you want to do it immediately, then do it immediately. Ynez [chanting] in. A solid tier here at the New York Historical society. The Southern States were standing up for their institution of slavery and theyre a new states rights. Then theres this higher order that called the confederacy. And does that factor into the emancipation in the civil war . That is a big and complicated action. Its a famous paradox that this nation founded on the principle of states rights becomes more highly centralized than any thing that 19th century had been a devout and so its well known that its true. Its important to understand everybody in the 19th century believes in state rice said that the fight over how much the southerners presumably preserve state rights, but they should be the Enforcement Agency of the fugitive slave clause and they should drag free . Resist streets. The federal government should pass a federal slave code. So states rights for what . We want states rights away what to do what they want us to or benefit. Nobody goes to war over states rights in the abstract. In this particular case it was the states right to make people property and keep them that way. My name is pamela coker. I am no historian but i recently read a diary of a young woman named Jesse Underwood who lived in bowling green, kentucky. Her father was a retired congressman. They were slaveholders, that his belief during the civil war as he did not believe in succession at all because he felt the United States that america should be this great country that we were developing and he did not want us to go to a south american type many, many countries that would be a european type situation that we had the chance to be really grand. How many people have that belief . Is that a big group, a little group . At the end, the robo spurned their property that got very ill treated for this leaf. Its very hard to put numbers on this. The further north you go in the Southern States come with the more likely you are to hear that. The closer they are to the border, the more likely they are to think of it as a war. The union army and Confederate Army will meet with the most thais to the northern state. So you are more likely to your slaveholder at a border area talking that way than you that way did you learn the a deep south state with the possible exception of sugar planters in louisiana who are better off than the union. Generally speaking, what you see in those order areas is a much more serious division. Large numbers of slaveholders from kentucky to delaware and maryland defect because they do believe in succession. So it is not that uncommon in the area. Its at evening, everyone. Im alex castel here at the New York Historical society. Thank you very much for joining us for this conversation. Also, thank you so much to try and to and Edna Greene Medford for a great night. They will be signing books in the book signing is going to be by her Central Park West side of the building. Please join us for that. Again, thank you so much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] and now we want to introduce you to george gibson, publisher of lounsbury press. Mr. Gibson, what is the history of lounsbury quick lounsbury was a British Company founded to new england 27 years ago in the u. S. Company was started in 1998. So we are now 16 years old here that we publish a lot of books together with our colleagues in the u. K. We have an Indigenous Program here, but most of what we publish across the atlantic, whether its originated in a red door which made it here. What kind of books to look for . I could give you a sense will example in sacred works, but that is too simple. We look for story. If its fiction we look for great story writing. Nonfiction is about story also. Sometimes a different story. One is always looking for this style, the quality of the writing and the caliber of the
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.