Hello im fred wade. Im have the honor of introducing jeremi suri this afternoon and thank you for coming. And thank you to our sponsors, the Madison Public Library and Madison Public Library. And the signature sponsor, richard levy. Martin leaving marvin levy. I wrote it down wrong and my notes notes, jeremy is has written a remarkable i will endorse it up front thats all i need to say here he graduated with with his earned his ph. D. At yale a number of years ago came to madison taught here in the History Department for ten years and then im sorry to say was lured away to the university of texas and the lbjs of Public Affairs in austin, texas. The he is authored or. 11 books in all this. So this is the 11th including more recent are shortly a short time ago book called the impossible presidency of liberty. Sure as guardians and a book henry kissinger. Hes a hes written for the New York Times post wall street and a number of hes often quoted or appears is offered an invitation to comment on various news programs and radio and television and. He hosts a podcast called this is democracy. Each week. As i said at the beginning, this is an important book and a book. It makes the point that the civil war did not end with the surrender of lee at appomattox, but was continued in a very real respects, by other means during the ensuing 20 years. It makes the point that frames this is being part of a long and unfinished fight for democracy. Thats the subtitle, the book. And from what seen of the book, its an accurate. And finally he makes the point that the recurring problems around inclusion and exclusion with voting and the meaning of representation who may vote are recurring in our time as a continuation of the same kinds of issues we focused in the period hes writing about and indeed had prior to that time as well. So with that, please welcome jeremi suri. Oh, good afternoon everyone. Its such a joy to be here. I see so many friends in, the audience and so many people who i know will. Difficult questions. I see you, jim kurtz, im so happy to be here. I want to thank fred, who has among many of you a such a longtime friend. And i had great joy of coming out to austin last spring. I often come out our daughter is a sophomore here and fred is part of this group called the bull moose club. And we had a wonderful dinner at the madison club that was just just terrific. And so thank you, fred, for being such a good friend. I do want to acknowledge my wife and my daughter, alice, and walter allison. Allison has a real job. I dont have a real i get to study and teach. Its a hard job. But she has a real job. Shes the mayor pro tem and austin, texas. And yeah, and natalie is a sophomore here at uw. Were so happy that shes back in madison. Im getting some feedback here. Yeah. Okay, so im delighted to have the to talk to all of you. And i want to explain, discuss my journey to book a little bit. And then i want us to talk i want to talk about the book a little bit and then i want there to be plenty of time for q a discussion. And then well leave at about 10 p. M. Tonight. How does that sound . I know how we do it on sound. We okay . Were okay. All right. Good. So as many of you know, im a child of immigrants and i came of age believing as the child immigrants would that, our country was imperfect. I was well aware of that growing up in new york city in the 1980s. But i believed and still believe that our country is what Abraham Lincoln called the last best hope on earth. I still believe that. But the last 6 to 10 years have shaken that belief. I think its shaken the beliefs many of us. How many people have been shaken in the last 6 to 10 years . Everyone, you know, every room i talk to, thats what people do. Every hand goes up, you see, were not divided. We all agree. We agree. These have reoriented me. These 6 to 10 years. Theyve reoriented. I see the world as a historian and as a scholar, as a teacher or as a father, as a citizen. And i worry as i didnt before about the world were leaving to natalie and zachary and others. My new book is an effort to chronicle this issue, to understand where it has come from. Its not an explanation of whats happened the last 6 to 10 years. Its not a polemic. Its not designed to be one more polemical story. We have enough and we have journalists are doing a great job of bringing salacious, sensationalist news to us every moment, the day we dont need more of that. My books and effort to do and my own effort to understand and what the roots of these difficulties are. And as a historian, it wont surprise you that the roots, i think, are very deep. They arent about one election. They arent about one man. They about even our moment. You see, historians can offer us, if we can offer anything, is that there are deep roots in the ground and they dont always bloom in our garden. We dont always see the flowering of those roots, but those roots are still there and at certain moments, if theyre not dug up, they do invade our garden and understand where those roots have come from. To understand what is low below surface that is influencing all of us, to switch metaphors, i might. My book is an effort to diagnose the cancerous tumors that began to grow in our democracy about 100 years ago or so. Cancerous tumors that have metastasized metastasized in recent years because of the conditions of the few years and because of the misbehavior of your certain people over the last few years. But the illness, the disease was already there. It seen you can act healthy ways and still have a disease deep within. I want to diagnose where that disease came from i want us to understand what the sources of this are and thats what my book is about. My book talks about not what we should do, but how we can better the problem to be better prepared to remove the cancers in our system. And thats my plea at the end of the book. Thats my plea to of you today for why this history matters. We cant fix what us if we dont know what it is. If we dont know where the disease comes from, if we dont have an accurate pathology and the history of democracy is the pathology of democracy, those who look at how the body developed over time and thats what my book does. Three pathologies in particular, there are others in the book. But three, i want to talk about today. One is the pathology of war. As many of you know, whereas this body thats been almost continuously war and there are many reasons why thats the case. Fortunately, madison has, a wonderful Veterans Museum and i see dan sharkey, the Veterans Museum here, a Veterans Museum, which i think chronicles at least wisconsin in war decade after decade. And correct me if im wrong, dan, every period covered because every period includes war, right . So war is one of our pathologies. How is war distorted our democracy leadership is another pathology. Why have we had such a mixed group of leaders what has that meant in our society. Fred referred to this already and then of course the distortions of our democracy, ways in which our democracy has developed in ways that dont meet anyones textbook of what a democracy would look like for each of these three areas, for war leadership and democracy. My book takes us to the civil war because i think the civil war is an important moment. The end of the civil war, the two decades thereafter, which are the heart of my book. Understood ending why war becomes so present in our society. Why our leadership struggles and why our democracy distorted. Those are current problems that have historical origins. Those are current problems that go back to that moment and thats why i wrote this book to understand better. And thats how we fix these problems by going back to understand where they came and trying to eliminate the initial conditions or to my gardening metaphor to remove the roots from the ground and not just on what were seeing above the ground all the time. So let me start with war. You cant talk about american without discussing war because its so ever present, though there are still people who to talk about our history without talking about war, then theyre not doing history. The civil war ended in april 1865, as many of you know, with this wonderful. When the two sides come together and youve all seen images of this if we were in a classroom, i put up the powerpoint the lovely paintings of Ulysses Grant and robert e lee at appomattox courthouse, the two men sitting in very stately demeanor. You would think they had just had a graduate seminar, signing, signing what is to be a truce, end the war. And most textbooks say thats the end of the war. In fact, it wasnt. Wars dont end when the paper is signed, wars linger. Its one of the points. Carl von made in the 19th century. War is politics by the means and the politics dont go away simply because the belligerents have left the battlefield. This is something americans forget. We think we can mobilize for war when wars and go home . Its not. It works. Were still in a certain way fighting the vietnam war, arent we . Were still dealing with the iraq war long after leaving iraq, robert e lee says to grant and appomattox and this is in grants memoirs which by the way is still the best memoir written by any president in American History. I encourage you all to read grants memoirs, and one of the reasons its the best memoir. He doesnt talk about the presidency at off. He just talks about his time during the civil war. He recount that lee said to him and these are grants words recounting, lee that quote the south is a very big country and you might have won on the battlefields but if you want to really win this war, you have to march over the south three or four times before the war will entirely end. What lee was saying was that simply because they were laying down their arms. It mean the struggle was over. Lee is often depicted as giving up. Its not true. He sees himself war moving to another phase. Hes no hero. Hes no graduate. Jeff when i say that south of the masondixon line. But im here can say that hes no hero. The soldiers home in some cases in cases they dont, they dont give up. They dont give up. The war didnt end at appomattox. One of the things i did for this book was do research on those who decided not to surrender. And theyre actually a lot of them, 50,000, 50,000 confederates go to mexico more go to brazil. Most people dont know that. One of my good friends who has one of the most popular textbooks said, oh my gosh, now i have to rewrite my textbook because of your book, i was like, yes. These men i chronicle some of them, they dont give up. They see the war moving to a new phase ill give you some of their names. You havent heard of them . Joseph shelby. Joseph shelby was from missouri. He was a commander of famous commander of confederate forces, vicious commander, not well known. The north very well regarded in the south. How do i know this . Because my research relied about about a hundred heroic books about him still written this day and took his forces down to mexico joined the of Emperor Maximilian who was an installed emperor by Louis Napoleon in mexico joined mexico and Emperor Maximilians with the intention the explicit intention of fighting to protect the emperor in mexico. So hes a royalist with the intention of returning to the united with his slaves. Another gentleman, John Bankhead magruder. Anyone named John Bankhead magruder youve got to be worried about right, John Bankhead . Magruder was from texas, though he had spent much of his life in new york. Believe it or not new york had a lot of confederate sympathizers and magruder took his forces as well. He played a major role with shelby. And not only People Living on maximilians army, but settling a new area of mexico called carlotta, named for the emperors wife, carlotta. It wont surprise had plantations that looked, like virginia and they brought their slaves. There was no slavery in mexico. So magruder came up with this great idea. We will give them 20 year labor contracts, africanamericans and they can get paid at the end of the 20 years. Im technically not slavery technically not. Matthew fontaine, maury is someone you should have heard of. You havent. He had a statue on richmonds way three years ago. Matthew Fontaine Maury was one of those prominent girard refers. Anyone studying geography at uw in the mid19th century 1848 would have known him would have known who he was. He was a confederate ambassador to england. He never came back initially after the war, he straight to mexico. He was the chief and recruiter for american citizens to come to mexico after the war. After that, he came back to the United States and founded tech university, was offered the presidency of. The university of virginia didnt take it. And he, by the way, he wanted to live close to robert e lee intentionally. Thats Virginia Tech is where Virginia Tech is. Robert e lee was at Washington Lee University at that or i guess it was Washington University later named washington and Lee University the final figure, the one i want to spend a little more time on. Alexander watkins, terrell judge in houston becomes general, joins Emperor Maximilian, becomes a spy, spying on grant and sherman and sheridan for mexican government. That is the definition of treason, not secession, but to spy for a foreign army is the definition of treason. After maximilian is defeated by benito juarez, the republicans who were supported by lincoln before death, after maximilian, is defeated. And in the book we have that famous photo from goya of the assassination, the killing of maximilian. After that. Tyrrell and morey and magruder and, shelby and almost all 50,000 of these horrible people who refuse to surrender. Ladies and gentlemen, came back to the United States and they ran for office and got elected to office. There was a statue for magruder in until a few years ago. Maury was at the center of way Alexander Watkins, who i mentioned, came back to, was elected to the state legislature, became the leader of the Democratic Party in texas. He wrote the legislation to create the university of texas. My employer. He also wrote the voting laws in texas who do you think didnt get a vote . He wrote those laws. He wrote those laws. They were called the terrell laws until the Voting Rights act of 1965. He created the first primary in texas, which, if you know texas history, called the white primary because was the Democratic Partys primary governor for senators, etc. And the Democratic Party was the only party in texas. And the democratic did not allow nonwhites to vote in this primary. That only changed. In 1944. That only changed in 1944, with the Supreme Court decision. Smith versus all right. Until that period until that period there was no voting for in primaries in. Can you believe that beto orourke and Governor Abbott recently a debate and this actually came up in directly there abbott said weve always allowed for free voting in this state and better looked at him and said, where do i begin to you . You are wrong. What worries me is many people watching that debate know this history. Why is it important to teach history . Ladies . Gentlemen, because it becomes significant to our politics day. Its not just these bad actors who leave the country become exiles. Theres a continued throughout the country the creation of the ku klux klan the red shirts were a version that in South Carolina i talk in the book, it was very hard to write about this, about riots in memphis, tennessee. Were not only in memphis and colfax and elsewhere, not only hundreds of homes burned, thousands of people injured, but in these riots often led white sheriffs and white businesses. In these riots quite often women are multiple, multiple times raped, public. In fact, a symbol of white power. One congressional investigating which the congress is committees dont that committees dont matter investigate matter because they provide us with a historical record. If nothing else, the Congressional Committee investigations reported that it seemed as if rape was being used as a flagrant mechanism for intimidating all africanamericans and any of their supporters in this region, this is the world after the civil war. Now, while this is happening the winners, the good guys continue to push as well, its not a one sided story. I write in the book about the extraordinary activism of africanamerican soldiers and many white and nonafrican supporters. Those who helped to start businesses. Those who helped to try to change politics in the south, to create schools, to the ame church, to create opportunities for people that didnt before liberty leagues self protect shin militias and new alliances. Actually, quite extraordinary. Thousands of slaves who did not have any freedom in their lives and could not read or write become literate leaders of their communities because of their Army Education and participation. Then, as in war two, as in many of our periods, the army, which has deep nonetheless is probably institution. Thats usually the spearhead for integrating and educating new elements of our society. And thats certainly true for africanamericans coming out of the war. That is exactly what made change so difficult, though i remind people that what motivated John Wilkes Booth more than anything else was seeing africanamerican soldiers Holding White of war in washington, d. C. , and to think about what a shift in that is, the war might have ended on the battlefield fields, but these tensions, this violence actually spread through American Society. We dont appreciate how violent American Society was in the 1860s and 70, dont appreciate violent. Our own history is. And one of the points i think thats absolute crucial is that war comes home, whether we like it or not. And when war home, it disrupts our politics for decades and even for centuries as the memory of that period might not be clear in of our actors minds today. But it laid the foundation for much of what we see similar rhetoric, similar of force, similar paramilitary violence. It is actually not very far go from the groups ive talked about to proud boys today. They actually are right when they say they have a long tradition in of what they are doing that is built into our democracy as much the story of remarkable mobility for those who were formerly slaves, formerly enslaved, who become free citizens. Both are part of our story. Too often focus only on one. Well let me take ownership of that. Too often i have only focused on one part of that story. Both parts of those stories are alive and well. And both parts of those stories are. That has not ended. Thats still in front of us. We just dont call it that. This relates to leadership as well. Ive spent years writing about leadership, trying to figure it out, and my wife reminds. Me that i still havent because she has to usually do what i tell her not to do to get done in office. Our leadership is not something one can define in universal ways. I am opposed to the argument that there is any kind of universal model of leadership. There are no leaders all seasons. There are no leaders for all seasons. Let me just give you two examples that you know, Herbert Hoover and winston churchill, everyones heard of these two men, right . Put up your hands. Or if you havent still put up your hands for me, if im having a heart attack here right. Herbert hoover succeeded at everything in his life. Hes the orphan who goes to stanford who becomes the great business man, the great philanthropist, the man who actually does better with natural disasters in the United States than else until he president and he is the singularly worst equipped person deal with the great depression. Because the thing hoover doesnt do is empathy. Hoover does smart analytical work as is said, he couldnt even get his wife to empathize him half the time. Winston. Winston churchill has a career filled with failure after failure. Hes for boer war. Bad idea. Hes for the invasion of gallipoli. He actually designs it disaster. Hes for cutting the british navy. The 1920s. Not a good. But he becomes a towering figure in world war two. A truly heroic figure for all his flaws. Right. What does this tell us right . Theres no leader for all leadership is circumstantial. Leadership is circumstantial. I spent a lot of time in the book talking about Ulysses Grant and Andrew Johnson and behaves though no one remembers rutherford b hayes. Right. These were men who were ill suited for the presidency at the time for different reasons. Andrew johnson wanted to reverse the history he had just lived through Ulysses Grant, who had a fundamental, came to see african in a fundamentally different way because of their service in the war was politically maladroit in every way and. Of course he was he was trained in a Hierarchical Organization where everyone follows orders. Have you seen our politics . Its not how it works. He could not get his own party controlled two thirds of the senate and two thirds of the house to actually institute what he was trying to do. He created the Justice Department. People, theres no Justice Department in the constitution. Theres an attorney general. He creates the Justice Department. Enforce the laws. He creates system of military tribunals that will supersede local civilian tribunals that are not enforcing the law. But then his own party defunds the Justice Department because he couldnt persuade them that this was more important than making money in the west. And of course, that was going to be hard to do. Of course they were tired of the war. Of course, northern republicans didnt want to keep fighting. But thats what political is all about. Rutherford b hayes came to the he just had to move on after an election of 18. In 1876 that he lost, which is to say received for hundred that 40,000 fewer votes at least than than samuel. An election where three states and these wont surprise you. Florida South Carolina louisiana had disputed votes. He becomes president with the only hope maintain his presidency by forgetting all history weve just talked about and just to move on. Hes the example of leadership is not saying let bygones be bygones. Lets move on. Because when you do that, the bad guys still remain in place. The bad guys are still there. Our system i think this history shows is not wellsuited to choosing the kinds of leaders we need. Each of these three men became president for electoral reasons, but electoral reasons are not leadership reasons. Neither was a healer. Neither a person who brought clear purpose. Neither was had the ability to publicly persuade. And none of them were really committed to. Fundamentally changing the system. They didnt have the skill set. Thats who they were. And thats why were chosen. One of the challenges we face is how can we make our system a system that produces and elects better leaders . We cannot rely on simply assuming our system, bring the cream to the top. It hasnt. In fact, it rarely does. It rarely does. Thats not an antidemocratic argument. Thats actually the problem. We have to deal. Thats the challenge we face and by the way, thats exactly what James Madison and alexander and john jay debate in the federalist papers where back that space that takes me to the third area distort portions of democracy. The best definition of democracy we have from Abraham Lincoln, most of the best things we have come from Abraham Lincoln. He says, gettysburg, as everyone knows. I hope everyone knows that democracy is government of people. By the people. For the people. Of the people. By the people. For the people. The challenge that the civil war poses and postcivil war years. That the politics after the war actually take the people out of democracy because the war had been a peoples war. The solutions are solutions that limit popular activity. And so in some ways postcivil war, we see remarkable creativity within our society a remarkable creativity to create stability, but stability that decent franchises millions of people, africanamerican and others. Thats less of an issue. Before the civil war, because were such a stratified society because populations dont have access to vote, particularly africanamerican populations, but also immigrant populations others. Its after the civil war that we see a rise in voter turnout and participation. And the question is who gets to participate now and who doesnt . The participatory question becomes more important and the postcivil war actions especially the 1870s and eighties, are creative to enfranchise some and not disenfranchize others. Lets talk about voting in that context. The 15th amendment in 1870, which in some ways is remarkable. It prohibits the use of race as a criterion for denying anyone the right to vote. Intentionally as i show in the book, leaves many other mechanisms for denying the right to vote. Think about it. We have a First Amendment right to free speech. It is very hard to stop someone from speaking learned that. Its very hard to stop someone from speaking. And thats good. Im a kind of First Amendment absolutist myself. Right. We have a Second Amendment that at least some people think. Right. Entitles everyone to a gun. Its a debatable proposition. We have nothing like that for voting. 15th and 19th amendments. Simply say you cannot use race or sex. But they leave the door for many other things. Imagine if our First Amendment said that. Imagine if our First Amendment said, you cannot deny someone right to free speech based on race or sex. Wed find all other ways to deny the right to speak freely. We do that with voting. Ladies, gentlemen, that was intentional. Thats exactly the debate in the late 1860s and seventies. Should we have an amendment to give everyone the right to vote or not . And this choice by both democrats and republicans is not. The republicans on this are particularly interesting. Men like john sherman great senator from ohio and, brother of William Tecumseh sherman, lyman trumbull, senator from illinois. These men come to the conclusion that they want africanamericans to vote in the south but they dont want them to vote in their own states. And they certainly more important than that. They dont want irish italian immigrants voting because those are the populations that are most disruptive to their election. Right. Theyve been elected in a stratified electorate. They want that electorate to grow, but they want to keep others out. And thats a bipartisan. Thats a bipoc issue. Thats not a single partizan issue. We have a remarkable history that begins the end of the civil war using poll taxes literacy requirements, voter registration. You know, in texas, if you want to vote in november, you now cannot register to vote. Texas requires you to to vote a month in advance. Just had an undergrad come up to me yesterday. Happens every election and say she wanted to to vote. Sorry if you didnt do it by october 11th, you cant vote. Now she can go out tomorrow and buy a gun if she wants, but she cant vote. But she cant vote. Why is that . Why do we do things that way . We use intimidation. Were the only major democracy that on a work day on tuesday that is not a holiday. We have onerous id requirements and they are onerous. If you talk to young people about what they have to and we want to talk about that, ill be delighted to. We felons who have served their so those should not have and maybe were appropriately punished for dealing drugs at age 20, 20 years later. In about half of states, they cannot vote. That has been taken away from them. And of course, we have locational decision. And i always find on election day its interesting to drive by the retirement communities that have voting right there and then drive by other parts of town where there probably isnt is in a spot to vote. Ladies and gentlemen, thats the outcome of the civil war, the debates, the war over voting is the continuation of that conflict. We are the only major democracy in the that does not have a Federal Center realized. Protection for everyone to vote. The only one in the world in fact, you could argue, is the greatest democracy we claim to be. The greatest democracy with worst Voting Rights, with the worst Voting Rights. Lets talk about representation as well. Gerrymandering back, of course, to the 17th century and actually goes back to the rotten boroughs in britain. But gerrymandering, as we know it, precomputer. Even with computers, the wisconsin gerrymander is a very 19th century gerrymander, because what you see happening the first time after the civil war are the efforts to carve out areas of non representation. You would not have done that before because slaves, even though they counted for the number of representatives, didnt actually get to vote. So you wouldnt to do that. And we actually relatively small of immigrants relative to our population as the immigrant numbers up as our society becomes more both parties start this game. And to this day, people in wisconsin know better than any state our courts have no role in pushing back on this in any serious way. So we have some of the least representative districts in the world. If i if we were in a classroom, id put up some examples to you. Harris county. The county around houston is always my favorite example. Harris county is larger than 11 or 12 states. Its potentially the largest county in the country. Houston will soon be the Third Largest city in the u. S. Its all in harris county. Right. Harris county is the most county in the United States by far more diverse new york city. My new york city relatives dont believe. But its true. Its the most diverse area in the country because of all the vietnamese immigrants, because of all the indian immigrants, etc. Right it has the whitest representation because of the way that the districts are drawn, because of the ways the districts drawn. And by the way, it doesnt seem to be much effort by the Democratic Party to change that either. They just want their individuals to be in office. Not just about race. Right. Thats about political power. And i dont have to tell you about the Electoral College, the Electoral College was created by the founders as a stopgap, couldnt figure out how to elect a president. They didnt think it would last. Its now become a basis over time for creating some of the most distorted outcomes in our elections. A vote in wyoming about 90 times. A vote in california. That process is a process that gets worse every decade after the civil war, as you have new population and that move and not adjusted in the way the electoral count in the senate is set up. So we have old boundaries. Notice we havent changed our state boundaries really since 19th century. We add hawaii and alaska, but we havent changed the 48 continental boundaries. But the populations course have moved considerably. Counter majoritarianism, a consequence of the civil war and the civil settlement becomes as central as majoritarianism to our system. And thats the real problem. We have repeated president s who lose the popular and become president. Its not just whats happened recently. Its the story of rutherford b hayes. Its why he wants to forget. Its the story. Benjamin harrison. It happens repeatedly. We have the rising influence. The Supreme Court, which did play this role. And i have a whole section, this book on this as now a preventer of change as a conservative stopgap do not think that the warren court is a representative of what the Supreme Court has been . The Supreme Court we have today is actually the Supreme Court. We had at the end of the civil war. Its a Supreme Court we had in the late century the Supreme Court. We had the 1920s and 1930s. The warren court, the exception. And that can be or bad. Thats the argument. The federalist society, that this is actually the tradition. And in fact theyre right factually thats the case. Just to point out how different that is. During the civil war, the years right before during and immediate years after the number justices was changed three times by congress and the jurisdiction of the court was changed since then. That has not happened until the early 20th century. We increased the size of the house of representatives every cannibal census since then that has not happened. And that is the settlement, as we call it, of the civil war to hold things in place and emphasize stability over change, to population. Count a majoritarianism gets built into our society and local violence does to. And here is the point i want to come back to. Its why i mentioned the klan and why i mentioned the red shirts and why i mentioned the exiles. We tell our history of being a society thats not violent, right . Iraq violent. Were not violent, right north korea is violent. Were not violent. This is not true. This is not true. And if i know what goes on on a daily basis, ask my wife she deals with in austin. Whats happening in terms of violence on a day. To day basis. This rises and falls at different moments in our society. But the potential the ability for for violent actors to operate and some ways the cover they receive our system is something thats been there for a long time. Now i say in our moment that violence is overwhelmingly coming on the right. But thats not always the case. This might sound like making an anti right wing argument. I am, but im not making an argument. The other extreme, because had moments in our history of violence on the left as well. Thats not what we have now, let me be clear. Black lives protests were the peaceful largest protests in our countrys history. More white people peacefully protested on behalf of black lives matter than jane brotman did. In the 1960s, i just saw you there. Its not on left today, but it has been at other times. So this is not actually a point about trying to give one side a historical advantage over the other. Its a recognition of that in our society. Weve repeatedly allowed for paramilitary violence and. The gun ownership we see today is that theres no other way to talk about it. People buy more guns every time. They fear their guns are going to be taken. And every time they that someone not from their is going to have more political power. Obamas election triggered more gun purchases. Bidens election more gun purchases. Its so interesting, isnt it . Who buys the guns and what positions they take. This man named Ronald Reagan youve all heard of when he was governor of california, was a strict advocate of gun control because the people buying the guns. Black power, oakland and elsewhere. He changed as to on that the donald. I grew watching in new york city was an advocate of gun control. That was his point when he took this horrible position on central park jogger. He said too many of those people are buying weapons. He was a strong advocate of gun control. Now he doesnt to be. I wonder. I wonder why paramilitary. Violence, bullying, intimidation. Unfortunately, those become more common and more capable in our democracy. See, after the civil war. So we are the worlds leading democracy. I think we are its our brand. But were also of the most antidemocratic societies at the same. And im not arguing that everything should be about democracy, but i am arguing this is the point of the book that we have to grapple this and we can see it happening in the choices leaders and citizens make after the civil war. And we are living those choices today. This is a cancerous pathology, a set of tumors that are vested in us. And we have to work to, recognize them and take them out. Why am i optimistic . Am i optimistic . Because think the last few years that have shaken so many of us have awakened us to these. Most of what ive told you might not have known all the history. But it doesnt sound that unfamiliar. It sounds pretty much like our world writing this book that is percent about the 1870s and 1880s. The parallels just jump off the page. And i often dont even mention them in the book because theyre so obvious. The actors at the time, those who claim fraud in elections, which was claimed repeatedly then those who say they will not leave when they lose election, those who say theyre going to bring their people out to enforce the law if the law wont be by the army, thats all they are as it is here today. Nothing is new. Its all old new again. But we have opportunity to get ourselves out of this disease to pathology. We are a great body politic with. The opportunity to do better and we do better by diagnosing the problem rather than wishing it away. Our opportunity today is to have a real debate how to change these things. Not here to tell you where we should end up. These are difficult issues, but i am to say that is what we should be talking about when we say our democracy is in peril. Its not because of a man with orange hair. Its actually because these issues are deeply vested in our society and they are deployed and weaponized by certain actors at certain moments. If we want to prevent replay of these events from the 1870s and the 2020s, we need to actually surgically remove these elements from institutions. And thats what my book is about. Thank you. Absolutely. Absolutely. So questions, comments. I know we have a very vocal audience. Yes, sir. And please identify yourself. My name is jim. Hi, jim from sioux falls, south dakota. My name is jim antman and im from sioux falls, south dakota. Ive really fortunate enough in my long lifetime, ive served almost 20 years on different City Councils in our in our area and our region down there. But i also love to study civil war. I love the history aspects of it. But in your opinion, im asking your opinion. Do you believe that if we did not have the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, that we would have been maybe put or set on a different path . Its a great question and it always comes up. Its the its a question that needs to be asked and im glad you asked it. It would have been different. If lincoln had lived. One of the big changes that occurs is that Andrew Johnson, who was only on the ticket because he was the one southern senator who did not succeed. Right. Andrew johnson wants to pardon all these bad guys. I talked about all these former confederates so they were able to get back into politics because they pardoned. Theres a real problem with president ial pardons, whether its bill clinton pardoning donors or whether its donald. Notice when both parties for you checking whether its trump pardoning goons. Right. One way or another, this is a problem right. So Andrew Johnson does what lincoln when, he would not have pardoned them. He might have pardoned the soldiers, but he would not have pardoned these officers who go back into the rolls, especially Alexander Watkins terrell and play horrible roles in basically institutionalizing the confederacy in the confederate world. And thats the way to think what theyre doing. So that would have been a difference. But i dont think lincoln had figured out how to deal with the lingering resentments that were going to take decades, if not generations, to change a i hope you all will read and we did a podcast on this too after you my book. Its a book by neiman who im sure van kat knows well. Its called learning from the germans. And she talks about this concept for a gang and hides alphabay tom, which is working. Germans make everything sound harder than it is right. Working through your history and challenge, lincoln would have had would be to get people to work through this history to change the way they think. And thats so hard. I think that only happens way really with a new generation most of us in this room are not going to change the way we think, but our children will. Right, natalie . Our children will. And thats what germanys done right . I dont think lincoln was equipped for that. But he would have done a still a better job than Andrew Johnson did. Thank you for your question, jim. Monique. All right, jeremy you Monique Mobley from one tequilas. Johnson and actually my question a little bit follows up on what your last line was i work in a high school in quantico . I do not work in the History Department, the english department. I am a member of our diversity, equity and Inclusion Committee within one who is trying to grapple with this issue and doing some good hard work. And i give a shout to that. However, theres a lot of pushback. What advice what encouragement can you give us for people who are just locals citizens trying to make our communities . And people are telling us, dont want to talk about it and just bring up a lot issues that dont help us move the conversation forward. Its such important. Question monique and i addressed that issue at the end of the book because i first of all, first of all, what youre doing monique and other teachers is so important. And let me, even before i into that, let me just make a shout for teachers. They do so in our society, get so poorly and on in our society. And thats just obviously im an educator, so im biased. But i think im right. I think right. So i end the book by making the point that you improve your society by studying where you have fallen short, as well as, where youve done well. And i think this in the same way i think about parenting and nathalie can correct me if im wrong, but you know, the way alison and i have approached parenting is we love our children dearly. Ill do anything for my children. But our time and dinner are not about great. They are. They are great. Much than us. Much or much better than me. Theyre much more empathetic. They are much they are less competitive than i am. Theyre better so many ways. But what are our discussions with them . How can you improve, not your. No, youre a wonderful person, but you can still improve. You shortcomings. We all do. And it wont surprise you. They respond and, tell me my shortcomings right. But. But thats because we love. We hold them to the highest standard. Those i love the most i hold to the highest standard i spend the most time trying to work my favorite students are the students im spending the most time trying help them improve. Ill a lot of students who they need to they dont care so im not going to care much. Thats just the reality right . Ive 300 undergrads. I teach. I cannot spend an hour a week with all 300 of them. Ive tried. Doesnt work right. But i can spend an hour a week with ten or 15 who are really trying to learn to write. Most of them dont know how to write really to learn to think critically. Most of them theyre doing that. Theyre not right. I love those students because theyre trying to get better so i give them more time. But im not spending my time giving them attaboys. Im spending my time helping them to see how they can improve their writing, tearing apart their to show them how to write. Ive done that for some you in here, david fields and others write that. Thats what we do. Write and so if you love your country, you want to expose where your country has fallen short that the most patriotic act that is the most patriotic act you can have and thats what i what i argue at the end the book is that it is studying the dark sides of our history that help us to improve if you really believe in democracy you have to say i believe we can do this. We can be better and lets go for it. And the urge do otherwise to me seems me to be a giving up. It seems unpatriotic and we need to turn that discussion. So my specific advice to you is try however you can to explain that to these parents, say look, thats why i actually opened by talking about an immigrant how im an immigrant or the child of immigrants, why i love this country so i love this country. Im doing this with your kids, because i love the country. If you dont love your country and you want to give up on democracy. We dont have to talk about this, but if you care about this, i think its the most patriotic act one could undertake. All right, richard from madison, youve probably heard the phrase those who begin by burning books end, by burning people and was a little concerned about metaphor of, uprooting and taking out by the roots, because it sounds me like youre advocating purging. How how do i can understand purging or trying to overcome ideas . But it sounds suspiciously like purging people. How how do you go about reconciling those opposing im glad you brought up richard. Thank you. Im not for im not for any idea. I think all ideas as horrible as they might be, as i think i said. Right. Im pretty close to an absolutist on speech. But i do think, richard, that institutions need to be remade that our institution carry a certain history with them. And so im for uprooting institutions. Im for us looking long and hard at the institutions we have saying do they serve the purposes have agreed they should serve, let give you one that i dont think is actually partizan increasing the size of the house of representatives. As i said, weve done it every decade in our history until. The 19 teens we stopped. So now i think each member of congress represents more than 750,000 people. Do you feel represented by your member of congress . You have at your mark pocan here . Right. So some of you might think you are good. Most americans, we know the surveys. Americans say they are not democrat or republican. Theres agreement on that. Most americans, democrat or republicans, say my congressperson doesnt understand. Where i come from, what i lets uproot this belief weve had since early 20th century, really the stalling of the size of the house of representative remake, the house of representatives, the german bundys tarred for a society is one fifth or one sixth. The size of ours has twice as many. And they seem to be able to function. You can agree or disagree with their policy. Why not . Why not create more . Why dont dont we do that . Thats the kind of uprooting im talking about institutionally adjusting. I think universities could go through this, too, right . Im dismayed that i have very few students who didnt have parents who went to college. Its very hard at a public university. We need to rethink our education system. Are a whole group of people who are left, who are getting into uw, not getting in to u. T. Because the system benefits certain people wasnt built for that reason. Certainly university of wisconsin wasnt wisconsin idea was not only if your dad went to college, do you get to go to college, right . So im that kind of uprooting, but im not for silencing any idea and im definitely not purging a single book from any library anywhere. That is the refuge of cowards that, im afraid of what youll read and to connect to moniques point, i mean, as a parent, ive learned that the day i try prevent my children from being exposed to something is the day they actually want to read it more. So i also just dont understand counterproductive element of this. Jim kurtz jeremy, jim kurtz from middleton, im glad to see you are in a stupid as you were when you left madison, but you do need that because im not hanging out with you anymore. I think. That youve kind of glossed over really pretty fundamental point and thats our constitution. The constitution was written by north european men with the idea of voting from all people that werent northam and matt and in order to have the constitution set up, there was, a compromise of that land needed to be represented as well as people. And so you know, people who talk about the Electoral College, its bogus argument. Theyve got to deal with the constitution, agree with you and basically say, i dont know how youre going to. The worst thing that could happen was have a constitutional convention. I agree with nothing that would be worse than that. So i dont know. So were really not a democracy. Were a democracy. The states, in order to have a popular vote to pick who the president ial candidates are, electors are. So were a democracy with 50 different democracies and i dont know how and people dont talk about that thats the problem. You know if youre going to prevail in an election and weve had situations like is. Ladies 19 2016 when a president ial candidate can choose to come to wisconsin, didnt want wisconsins electoral vote and basically you have to play. Its like playing football or anything. You have to play by the rules and the rules are is you need to get win enough when when a majority of enough states in order to get yeah yeah and you know and that is what we thats something thats doable its not doable to change the constitution well so you know i disagree that i think its really hard to change the constitution. The constitution is built to be i with you. Okay, good. Im youre making progress. You know. Thats a first step. Im going to show you. Im going to sit down before i make you look bad, okay . Thank you, jim. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments like the other amendments thereafter, which have been rare, are of the constitution. There is much the constitution as what the founders put it in the constitution, and we can change the constitution its really, really hard, but it can be done if we actually toward that. And so, you know, i am a believer and revolution from within thats back your question before, richard. Right. This is the Rudy Dutschke approach, right. The long march through the institutions. Weve got to do that hard work because as a historian, ill tell you and i know is going to disagree with me later and yell at me, but revolution actually to produce bonaparte ism, it tends to produce authoritarianism. So im not for revolution. Im for working through the system as hard as it is, i would like to see us have a National Conversation about a right to vote. And i think that we actually could get an amendment within ten years for a right to vote. I want do what the suffragist did and go back where and i want us to get a right vote for everyone. I want us to have a constitutional amendment so that human being gets to marry other human being. Im yet to find an undergraduate who doesnt agree with that. In my most conservative undergrads. Right. So you know what . As long as theyre human beings and they want to marry, as we say in new york, god bless. Right . God bless. Right. Its hard. We can do it. I want to give up on that. I think actually were too to give up on that. Lets do the work lets do the work. Stu stu levitan, madison, good to see you, professor. This relates to the first question, but i think its different. You take the Terror Campaign by the knights of the white camellia and the klux klan out of the equation in 1865, 66, 67. And grant doesnt discouraged and stays strong reconstruction does that exercise the tumor orders wilmington 1898 still happen. Absolutely think wilmington 1898. And just so were all on the same page, wilmington, 1898 is one of many coups that in our society. I didnt make this point in the lecture, but i do is reminded me, as he does so well, that actually this kind of violence has had political time and again. Colfax, 1873, is a community in louisiana where you have an africanamerican government and you have white terrorists come in and actually assassinate the leaders of the government and take over 1898 in wilmington is the same. And there actually are a number of other examples of that. So coups, people say there are no coups in American History. Well, they havent read American History then, which what stew is reminding us of if at the end of the civil war, if at the end of the civil war grant had been able to use more military force and had been to do that. And perhaps if lincoln had back to jims question, it would have been harder for these groups to operate, but it would not have eliminated eliminated their operation. Whatever a re mobilization, the american military, it would have required not just grant doing more with what he had, but actually continuing to fight war. And thats one of the lessons the war doesnt end when the other side gives up. Its only just its only just begun. There was nowhere near the northern commitment necessary to make change, just as there was nowhere near the commitment necessary in vietnam for it is we were trying to do or nowhere near the commitment in iraq. And if you dont have the commitment from your public, you cant do it. Thats the problem. Maybe lincoln would have persuaded americans, but it wasnt there at the time. Yes, sir. Hi for being here, jeremy. Steve holtzman. Hi, steve. A former alder person that can understand how hard your wife. Thank you. Thank you. Im hoping your texas perspective bring some wisdom to madison right now. Most people in this room, well, not appreciate that. Wisconsins football at this moment. But on the facts network, not on espn, which brought in hundreds of millions more to big ten teams. So with the Wisconsin Athletic Department rolling in money, theyre proposing a 300 million workout facility that will replace some of the existing facilities. To put that in perspective, our new Computer Science building will be about 125 million. I new l. A. Building. Thats in part by the sponsor. The book, marv levy. Richard levy. Thats 90 million. And so 300 million. Now understand, your chair is endowed by the former coach of Texas Football team and im wondering if you have any perspectives on how to maybe some of that 300 million into scholarships, academic excellence, rather. Question steve. Its a great question. This brings back so memories. I used to be on the athletic board here as some of you might remember, which is a dinosaur. Now, what . Two successful. Two successful now . Yeah. No, i was one of many battles ive lost. Im, i, i was trying to change things. Look, lets talk about operating institution as one of the most corrupt elements in our society today. The ncaa absolutely corrupt. Its absolutely corrupt, right . The coaches get paid millions of dollars. Im not against people making millions of dollars, but theyre getting paid millions of dollars. The labor gets paid nothing or next to nothing. Its a great system, isnt it . Right. You could run your business that way. Anyone in this room will . Youd be doing well. You got free labor. Right . Yeah. We give them scholarships. What the Athletic Department doesnt pay for those. And by the way, scholarships are very low cost relative to the revenue thats produced. Your coach was just fired midseason. He took home 11 million. That happens to all you, right . When you leave a job. That happens to all of you when you. You leave a job. Look what has happened is that College Football has become big entertainment money. Its hollywood. Its entertainment. And the people running universities are the most ill equipped people to do this. So who runs this . Athletics runs itself. Athletics raises money for athletics. Athletics uses that money to pay the shareholders in athletics. Who are the coaches and the athletic director. Right. What happens and not going to change, steve until we do what i was arguing we should have done and didnt do. So obviously i failed, which is betsy martin was chancellor here. My argument was need to actually tell them youre sheriff and that that money is your money and give that to students. Wouldnt be nice. Back to my point about scholarships and students from non advantaged backgrounds. Wouldnt it be wonderful the university of wisconsin could offer right. Not just in expensive tuition, which you have for instate poor families. Right. But actually will cover all your costs. Well make easy, well give you tutoring, well make it easier for you to succeed. You come from a disadvantaged background. We could use that money so much better, but instead were lining the pockets of former coaches. Its despicable. Its my opinion. Clear on this, steve. Its only going to change when we force these institutions to change it. And right now, it doesnt change. Ill tell every University President i know ive known the last three while at the university of texas i knew many of the wonderful president s here or chancellors, as you call them. I betsy martin john wiley. They scared to take this on because there are powerful donors who stand in the we complain about powerful donors in our politic its even worse at university theyve been a number of studies of this University President s more than half their time with and athletic donors more time than they spend in the classroom or faculty or with students. It doesnt matter public, private until we change, until the legislature forces to change that, were going to be corrupt in the way we are able. But i want to i dont want to i dont want to destroy the university. I want the university do what the university is supposed to do, prioritize education. But i dont, i see that as burkey and conservatism. Right . And thank you thank you