This is an hour and 45 minutes. Eric foner i am eric foner from the columbia university, moderating this second session on slavery and freedom. I want to begin by thanking the organizers of this excellent conference. We all know how much work went into, you know, putting this whole thing together. So thanks to those at the museum , and the American Historical Association that have been so active in getting this conference organized. Two weeks ago, i gave my last class at columbia university. I am now riding off into the sunset [applause] eric foner of retirement. And so i ask if you will indulge me for just a minute as i reflect briefly on my own experience in relation to this field of African American history. Which is a little, it is sort of emblematic of the many things that have happened the last couple of generations. I grew up in a family in which africanAmerican History, although utterly ignored in the School Education that i got in grade school and high school, nonetheless, the black experience was considered, in my family, central to American History. Paul robeson and web dubois were talked about. Friends of my family. I have a photo sitting on Paul Robesons shoulders. At age two, it was a very long way up. He was a big guy. And my uncle philip foner was prolific in the field of African American history. My father jack foner, also it a historian, published a book on the black military experience. Like clay carson who mentioned this last night, i took part on the march on washington 1963, but i older than he is, so i took part in the much less wellknown march on washington of 1957, not a wellknown part of our history. As an undergraduate at columbia, i was lucky enough to take my first history course with the legendary teacher james p. Sinson, who assigned dubois black reconstruction and america , even though the chairman told him that was not done at an ivy league institution. In 1969, i taught the first course in africanAmerican History ever given in the over 200 year history of columbia university, so the field was just beginning to get going outside of the black universities where it had always existed, of course. Among the students in my classes over the years whom i am very proud were eric holder, former attorney general. I gave him a b. [applause] [laughter] eric foner i think that was sort of a respectable grade back then. I think president obama recently issued an executive order raising that grade to an a. [laughter] and among my students, former students here at the conference are rita roberts and Stephanie Smallwood who are blogging away at this moment, i think. By who we saw in action last night, and it wont surprise you that when she was an undergraduate, she kind of split her time between excellent historical work and organizing to get columbia to divest its holdings in companies that were connected with south africa, so she was a Student Activist from the very beginning. And leslie harris, who was also in our program, was one of our students. And i chaired the Committee Later on that established the institute for research in africanamerican studies at columbia and hired as it were as our first director the late and much lamented manning marable. All of this to say is why i really want to tip my hat to bonnie bunch and his coworkers, because this museum that is going to open soon is really a dream come true for all of us who have labored in this venue of africanAmerican History for a long, long time. So thank you lonnie and those working with you. [applause] eric foner so now that the first panel has answered the question who is black america, this panel has to decide what the narrative paradigm is that best structures africanAmerican History. As you all know, one of the most influential works in this area in the 20th century was john hope franklins textbook from slavery to freedom. That is a simple, compelling idea from slavery to freedom. It suggests that emancipation is the pivot of the black experience, and perhaps of the whole american experience. There was also an alternative textbook out there, which many of you are familiar with, by meyer and brodrick, from plantation to ghetto. That suggests a somewhat more downbeat kind of history, right, one form of exploitation succeeded by another form of exploitation. But i think it is fair to say the slavery to freedom narrative has been the predominant one, although under considerable challenge of lately in the Current Issue of the journal of southern history, carol imberton has an article in writing the free marriage of, a review essay narrative, a sort of review essay of recent books that challenge the celebratory account from slavery to freedom. Books like jim downs escape from freedom, more than freedom, stacy smiths freedom frontier about unfree labor in the west. So one of the things i hope the panel will enable us to discuss is if this familiar slavery to freedom paradigm still make sense as a way of understanding the trajectory of black history, and why is this moment, when people might want to feel celebratory we are coming to the end of the first africanamerican president , why so many historians are understanding the limitations of emancipation and its aftermath and celebrating the transition. What are the implications for understanding slavery and freedom trend toward globalizing American History and africanAmerican History, and also emphasizing connections between slavery and capitalism, which we will hear about shortly. When the interpretive focus becomes so broad, so abstract, how can historical actors be factored in to the story . What roles can slave resistors play in a story which is operating at a global level . And then there is the question of reconstruction and how we want to think about that period after slavery, should be viewed as an episode of american democracy as dubois saw it, should be seen as a southern event what happened to the american component, as we include the west and expand its timeframe . Does decentering the south take away from it . And how does emancipation exist in public consciousness, in movies, in memorials, in flags, and how should we commemorate it in historical museums . Anyway, these are all big questions. We have a panel of big thinkers who can look at them. Their biographies and photographs, some of the photographs are antiquated [laughter] eric foner in the booklet that we have, i will not repeat their bios. This is the order in which they will speak. Number one, Walter Johnson from harvard university. Number two, Brenda Stephenson from ucla. Unfortunately, brenda was stuck in berlin yesterday. Her plane was canceled, she is in the air as we speak, so i will read the remarks. Secondly, unfortunately. Third is Thavolia Glymph from duke, and then annette gordonreed. From the Harvard History department and law school. Each as theythem call it a fat 10 minutes. I turned the floor over to Walter Johnson. The floor over to Walter Johnson. [applause] Walter Johnson thank you to eric foner. Again, i dont have anything as dramatic as i was not raised on shouldersaised on the of paul robeson. I did however once meet eric foner. [laughter] Walter Johnson thank you to the sponsors and dana elliott. It has been and are to be here an honor to be here and to reacquaint myself and to meet so many people who are my heroes. I want to acknowledge particularly my advisor who was the first person who helped me think through the fact that if we are actually going to try to write africanAmerican History, we need to imagine we are going to reconstruct the very categories of historical analysis around the historical experience of africanamerican people, and that is an idea i think has been shared and expressed by a lot of the folks in this room. It was from mel paynter that i first learned that. I want to try today to do a little bit around the question of freedom, and to try to think through a notion of freedom and to figure out how it sort of i would say a foreshortened version of freedom has talked shaped the historiography of slavery. I will pick up the pace. Brenda said i actually get her time. [laughter] Walter Johnson i dont think eric got that one. I want to begin from a familiar statement. You can find this in one variety or another. The statement is that slavery dehumanized enslaved people. A lot of problems and paul i statement. Rom that want to do this briefly and stop saying im going to do it usually. I think part of the problem with that statement is that the institution of slavery is in almost infinite variety, the terrible and inhumane things human beings do to one another. To cast it as the opposite of what it is human beings do is to misunderstand the character of human being. I think there is an implication of permanence in the notion of dehumanization that is baleful. I think it is much more productive to think of the condition of enslaved humanity, what it means to be a human being under the conditions of slavery. I also think many of the terroristic and perverse notions of slaveholding are alive with pleasures of slaveholding relied upon the notion of a human victim. I think that there is a deep ethical problem in historians of the 20th and 21st centuries casting doubt on the humanity of past historical actors, and it does raise the question of who gets to say when these africanamerican people or human were human again. And finally the statement about our own perceived ethical distance from the perpetrators, our ability to cast them as in human and take that and attribute it as if it is a characteristic of the victims, the fact that they have been be humanized. Dehumanized. There is an essential difference between arguing someone acted inhumanely and arguing the effect of their action was to dehumanize the victim. Behind all of these slippages, i think there is an unacknowledged ethical premise. Im going to read you a quotation from i guess not so recent but very influential book on history. I read this book not because it is particularly obtuse, but it is emblematic of presumptions which frame a lot of work done on the issue of slavery and some of the work i have done on the history of slavery. Whether implicitly or explicitly recognized the independent will and volition of their slaves, they acknowledged the humanity of their bond people, extracting this admission was in fact a form of slavery assistance. Slave resistance. Because slaves verify opposed to dehumanization inherent in their status. Status. So, thats a powerful sentence that collapses three different things. It collapses the notion of humanity into the notion of resistance, right . People are human when they resist. That leaves aside, then, the question for instance of despair. What about enslaved despair . What about enslaved suicide . And correspondingly, we see we do not have histories of these things the way we should, with the exception of mel paynters soul murder and slavery. The other thing is it leaves out the possibility of enslaved flourishing, for reasons we can all understand the minute i say the words happy and slave together. Nevertheless, we have no history of laughter and slavery. We have a very, very thin history of love. There is a collapse of enslaved humanity into resistance, i. E. Into the terms of enslaved peoples relationship with slaveholder. Finally this collapsing of the notion of resistance into independent will and volition, the thing am going to focus on the most. There is a collapsing notion of resistance into a particular form of what i would call subjectivity. The notion of what a human being is, a person who makes independent decisions. That is a notion of human subjectivity i will note to would be utterly foreign to net turner nat turner. Turner does not think he is a person who has independent will and volition. He thinks he is the fingertip of gods providence. He acts on the notion of sacred duty rather than independence. I want to call that into question. Now the thing that i guess i want to confidently say is that that figure of freedom is the very finger of freedom that is freedomery figure of being promulgated all over the world by the european slaveholding powers as the notion of freedom. It is a notion of freedom, freedom based on the rights of citizens that is historically framed by the problem of slavery and empire. So what i am interested in trying to do in the slightly longer and more convoluted paper that ive posted is to try to rework our notions of justice and human rights in the light of human slavery. It is really to try to treat slavery as the central moral event of modernity, to try to retheorized justice and freedom from the perspective of slavery and really the perspective of the continent of africa. Doing so would allow require us to give a thorough going account of what sort of Institution Slavery was and what we think of the enduring ethical and historical relevance of slavery, which i will do in the remaining three minutes i have. [laughter] Walter Johnson following Cedric Robinson and web dubois, this is the dubois of reconstruction as and thedark water essay on white folk which if you have not read, you should. Listening to the rest of what i at least have to say. I want to try to think about slavery as a form of racial capitalism. I want to look at exploitation through capitalism and racial domination through negro phobia, through common sense as identical to one another in many ways. It would take a lot of work to actually substantiate for you the notion that when we say the word capitalism, we should always say the word slavery. They are not two different things. That is why i want to say venture capitalism, but i will give you a few examples of why i want us to try to push, to insist upon that racial capitalism, to insist upon an analysis of antiblackness alongside our analysis, inextricable from the analysis of capitalism. If you cannot use the word capitalism to describe the exportation for sale of 12 Million People across the atlantic ocean, i am not sure what usefulness the term has. It seems to me that is the first challenge to the history of capitalism that does not acknowledge slavery and its central aspect. But one can map what we take to be the capitalist economy of the 19th century, particularly great britain, the capitalist economy for those who want to define capitalism as if it was only something that happened in manchester. If you actually make a map of that economy, you recognize it is an agricultural economy that works on a yearly basis of advances. What happens, the cotton merchants in liverpool make credit advances to planters in louisiana. And those advances are made against the cotton crop. Sometimes the cotton crop comes in short, and in the advanced from liverpool to louisiana is not going to get paid off by the time it actually comes in. So then there is a debt, and that debt has to be collateralized. So there is the atlantic system of slavery, which everybody acknowledged in the 19th century to be the moment where capitalism dawned in the cotton mills in lancashire. So there are cotton mills and human beings. Slavery was capitalist. Enslaved people were the capital. The other form of collateral is land, and that is land that we could just kind of here relate to the paper that ty miles did this morning. Notably, that land is covered by the Supreme Court decision, macintosh of 1823, by colleague gordonreed could correct what im going to say, but this is a foundational case of United States property law. You go back to the origins, try to go back and figure out why is it we legally owned the things we owned. At the bottom of that, we see johnson versus macintosh. This is the case which says that native americans are not allowed to sell land to individual white settlers. All native American Land must be aggregated under the federal government. It was to be just a beaded through a capitalist land market to white southerners. So that puts the bare bottom for property relations in the United States, there is imperialism, racial difference, and capitalist mode of distribution. That is the foundation. So those are some of the pathways i would try to use to elucidate this notion of racial capitalism, which i can do more on the questions and elucidate it a bit better in the paper, in the paper that is posted on the website. What i what to do with the little bit of time and i have remaining is outline what i think the benefit of bringing slavery to the center of our question of what we call human rights or global claims of justice to understand slavery in this particular version of slavery i have just tried to outline as a central, moral event of modernity. First of all, it is the amount of the p of injustice from the standpoint of african america, native america, the global south and rather than the global north, not from europe. It makes europe a central problem rather than the site of the elaboration of notions of justice. Secondly, and this just goes to some of the questions earlier, it is focused on the question of extraction and distribution with areas of the world. It proposes a generalization of the account of the historical wrongs based on the experience of those in europes dark workingclass, which takes the experience of dark workingclass of the world and generalizes that as the experience we should use to characterize justice everywhere. It is historically deep. It analyzes and emphasizes ways of present distribution and production related to past patterns. It is in that way, i think, a powerful antidote to colorblind liberalism, right . You need to think about historical distribution, not simply contemporary distributions. Emphasis on slavery as an apparent somatic wrong goes to gender and sexuality, relating to natal alienation, the subjection of one group of people to the purposes of another were the core feature of the human wrongs of slavery. It brings gender and sexuality to the heart of our question of global justice. Finally, and i think that this is important, it wants really to understand the history of capitalism and slavery, one would write a paper about the instrumentalization of human beings to think about the development of cotton plants, cotton plants genetically hybridized to meet the capacity of a human hand, and human beings were ethically and violently narrowed down to the capacity of their hands. Those two things, the instrumentalization of human beings and the crop is something we want to imagine from the standpoint of slavery, the history of slavery, we can theorize justice that is vigorously environmental. It is not simply green. It is not dedicated on politics or sustainability of standing order. It is theorized according to the politics of sustainability of a future imagined of a more just order. Thank you very much. [applause] eric foner thank you, walter. Brenda stevens paper is entitled, us never had big funerals or weddings on the place. The ritualized black family in the wake of freedom. Searching back over the long arc of her life, lorna was clear about her complaints in rural life in mississippi. Slave people could not create, celebrate, protect or ritualized family life. According to her, there were few ritualized events that signified the beginning or end of kinship ties. Us never had big funerals or weddings on the place, didnt have no marrying of any kind. Folks in those days it just sort of hitched up together and call themselves man and wife. It might not appear to be correct, or at least not applicable. With regard to marriage, some enslaved blacks in the south even had elaborate weddings. But there is a more profound truth about the social identity and status of enslaved blacks. None of their weddings seemed legally binding, and the actual bride and groom freely chose designated aspects of their marriage rituals. It was not unusual for slaveowners to assist with technicalities of the marriage rituals to turn this into something of a minstrel show for a white audiences benefit. While there is little doubt many married, especially those who did so of their own accord, typically found some meaning and even joy in the events that constituted that they were husband and wife, these rituals were fraught with the irony that defined the slaves life, the irony of being both a person and property. No matter how elaborate or cursory the marriage ritual, enslaved husband and wives were always aware of its devastating limitations. Slave masters and mistresses have viewed the slave marriage ritual in other ways, as a form of entertainment. The beginning of the birth of new slave property as a way to demonstrate their benevolence, as a form of sublunary control through the threat of filial loss. They do not conceive of the slave marriage ritual as a romantic, sacred, legally binding event as ideally expressed in the Property World of the southern gentry. I talked this morning looks at the marital rituals of black southerners before and after the u. S. Civil war as a window into the ways africanamericans bought freedom in the 1860s and the aunt, with public and private ritualized events that differentiated and designated their new status and Human Dignity as unfettered men and women. When no longer a bondwoman for example, the same people complained of having no family signifying rituals slaves, made certain her new free status showed that market of familial behavior that had been denied her when she was enslaved. Two years after the civil war, dora married freeman have a franks. She chose her own husband, married legally and bore her children legitimately. She had a big wedding followed by a supper. She noted, when i was on the constable, i met dora and was married. It was a big wedding and fees. Like so many others that struggled to define and live in freedom after he met the patient, family life as a free person with dora and ted franks meant in part of the exercise of legal and public familial ceremonies such as weddings. Unlike these marital performances that had occurred before emancipation, this pronounced a black family, community, and larger part of the southern world that free men and women had a right to claim marital relations, claim control over the intimate aspects of their bodies, to live under one roof, and to maintain their children. Unlike these marital performances that had occurred still, it is more about the social identity and status of enslaved blacks. The actual bride and groom freely chose few of the designated aspects of their marriage rituals. It was not unusual for slaveowners to insist on certain details of the marriage ritual to attend the event into something of a minstrel show for a white audiences benefit. While there is little doubt many married, especially those who did so of their own accord, typically found some meaning and even joy in the events that constituted that they were husband and wife, these rituals were fraught with the irony that defined the slaves life, the irony of being both a person and property. No matter how elaborate or cursory the marriage ritual, enslaved husband and wives were always aware of its devastating limitations. Slave masters and mistresses have viewed the slave marriage ritual in other ways, as a form of entertainment. The beginning of the birth of new slave property as a way to demonstrate their benevolence, as a form of sublunary control through the threat of filial loss. They do not conceive of the slave marriage ritual as a romantic, sacred, legally binding event as ideally expressed in the Property World of the southern gentry. I talked this morning looks at the marital rituals of black southerners before and after the u. S. Civil war as a window into the ways africanamericans marked freedom in the 1860s and beyond, with public and private ritualized events that differentiated and designated their new status and Human Dignity as unfettered men and women. When no longer a bondwoman for example, the same people complained of having no family signifying rituals slaves, made certain her new free status showed that market of familial behavior that had been denied her when she was enslaved. Two years after the civil war, dora married freeman have a franks. N pet she chose her own husband, married legally and bore her children legitimately. She had a big wedding followed by a supper. She noted, when i was on the constable, i met dora and was married. It was a big wedding and fees. Feast. Like so many others that struggled to define and live in after emancipation family life , as a free person with dora and ted franks meant in part of the exercise of legal and public familial ceremonies such as weddings. Unlike these marital performances that had occurred before emancipation, this pronounced a black family, community, and larger part of the southern world that free men and women had a right to claim marital relations, claim control over the intimate aspects of their bodies, to live under one roof, and to maintain their children. Temple herndon, for example, was certain that it age 31, she was glad when the civil war ended. Her and her husband worked be husband to live all the time together instead of the broader arrangement they had endured while slaves. For her, it was fundamentally coded as united family. I was glad the war stopped, she said, because then me and exit or could be together all the time instead of just saturday and sunday. Hundreds of thousands, if not more, had been married while enslaved, and wanted to marry after slavery ended did not hesitate to participate in new legally binding nuptials. They drew a line between slavery and freedom. Post slavery wedding rituals also seem to signify personal choice and were an opportunity for black men and women to openly display africanamerican romantic love and cultural ascetics. Freedom after all also meant the ability to profess ones beauty, one talent, once emotion, and ones intellect, personal attributes that had been routinely destroyed during slavery. Among the confusing, complicated, and somewhat conflicted patchwork of instructions from various governmental organizations, military, teachers and former owners, most freed couples sought legitimacy for their relationships and their children. Those who jumped the broom right before emancipation went right to the point of why they chose to remarry after gaining freedom. They wanted to ritualized their marriages in the manner that free people typically ritualized theirs, not as slaves. Five other marriages, thomas pope recalls, a man who could read and write to marry them. He married lots of blacks then. After the war, many blacks read married over again because they did not know if the first marriage was good or not. Charles davis explains it in a similar fashion. My mommy and daddy got married after freedom because they did not get the time for a wedding before. They called themselves man and wife for a long time before they were really married. Willis dukes was absolute about the legitimacy of his postbellum marriage, saying we did not jump over no broom, neither. We were like white folks with flowers and cake and everything. They shared the same marriage rituals as whites, their marriage had to be legitimate. Gus clark was also emphatic, i had three wives. I didnt have no weddings, but i marry them according to live. My first two wives is dead. This woman had a a cast dressed and she stepped over a broomstick. Then they had a real wedding with a preacher. That cost one dollar. Mary reynolds also had been married by stepping over a broom. After freedom, i put in the book by the preacher. Those who decided and had the ability to marry as individual couples brought serious thought and planning to their manifestations of the marital bonds. Clothing, bonds, venue decor, audience composition, and the dance party were all important to consider in these marriage rituals. Many of these choices also spoke to the ascetic values of late 19th century southern blacks and their skills as designers, seamstresses, that they brought with them out of slavery into lives as free people. Some of these preparations also suggest communal efforts and ties, black and white, that shaped southern black lives after slavery ended. Postbellum lives indicated in the assemblage process of clothing and adornment for body, hair, hands, and feet, those who were operative members of their communities met with free people. Some of the activity indicates as well active economic relationships between working white and black women at a time when fledging local southern economies were a burden for both. Other aspects that benefited from contributions also suggest ties across racial lines, some more cutting than others. Bonnie bonds employer donated her wedding cake. She was subsidized by whites. They had good reason for lending a helping hand. Given the difficulty in retaining workers after emancipation, many were a just to impress their employees, many of them former slaves, with tokens of generosity which suggested they supported black families who were loyal and good workers. Moreover, slaves like the position of economic superiority had encouraged the other ever popular myth of southern paternity. It documented sustained black economic independence. This made for bailing the skies the lingering financial exploitation whites imposed on black laborers, leaving little ability to fund their wedding or create new separate households. Black workers, in conclusion, also may have been able to leverage their employers need for labor to get them the assistance they needed to have these elaborate marriage rituals. So thanks to brenda, we will welcome her when she gets here, and now Thavolia Glymph. [applause] Thavolia Glymph good morning. So the title of my talk is between slavery and freedom, and i took eric, but not completely. I try to follow some of his instructions. So one day on a baltimore street corner, it was february 1961. Two black women were overheard discussing the state of the union. The dispute between the north and the south. One of them said, wait until the fourth of march, and then when i slept in my mistresses slap my mistress face. It was no date stashed out of thin air. It was the date to be inaugurated. Lincoln was to be inaugurated. And on that day and that event, the two negresses saw the opening of the ground. Unlike the president , they prepared to lead a different war. He prepared to lead a war to reunite the country as a slave country. They represented the black people who made no detours through middle ground, and knew what the central issue was. By the time the confederates had been defeated, the slaves had suffered massive defeats, but they had also won big and small victories. Those victories over the defeats helped them to redraw the map of the united state. In 1864 when johnsons name appeared for the wartime federal role, and she described as a citizen colored, that description registered a very small but a very big victory. Celinda johnson would have to wait another four years before the 14th amendment came at her citizenship was ratified, but in 1864, an agent of the federal government listed her, a slave woman, as a citizen, signaled just how far the war to put down the slaveholders had come. Just how for the union just how far the union had been transformed, in no small part to do to the efforts of people like celinda. She was joined hundreds of thousands with slaves that fled plantations and forced a merger of the union war and the slave war. Like many mergers today, it was a messy coming together, always fraught with the possibility that one or the other would withdraw from the merger. But slave resistance and that union redirected both the course of the war and events in patient and emancipation. Lincoln admitted as much in his famous letter to the citizens of springfield, illinois. Who had opposed his issuing the proclamation. He told them in no Uncertain Terms that they could fight on to save the union exclusively, but he also reminded them he had issued a proclamation to help them in saving the union. And here of course, he was particularly talking about blacks, their service and freedom were inextricably linked. He would not take the proclamation back. He wrote the party would be elected president for the restoration platform would lose the colored force, and that force being lost, the union would be powerless. Lincoln increasingly understood also, as did congress and union commanders, that women, black women, the mothers, wives, sisters, daughters would have to be offered the same deal, freedom. For negro women and children have less time, sherman wrote, they become a fruitful source of trouble. Over the past four decades, scholars have demolished the longstanding argument of historians that portrayed slavery as Benevolent Institution and sidelined the contributions black people made to union and to freedom. They no longer tolerate such nonsense of robert caudle, the Founding Member of the Southern Historical situation that said slave hours were long but not strenuous. They had never known freedom. He looked upon slavery not as degradation but as a routine. But we would not look at this nonsense of John C Calhoun that slavery was a mercy. Despite this, a large body of scholarship is looking at great and gritty details, the process of emancipation, we are still struggling with the question of what came next, what the slaves got a return, what freedom meant. It is now a hotly contested question among scholars. I want to talk about whether or not these consequences some scholars now have concluded it seems that slavery and the civil war were so bad, so damaged black people that when freedom came, they could hardly stand on the ground. Some seem to be asking, did freedom even ever come . The slow and tepid response of link its administration for what was a humanitarian crisis of lincolns administration for what was a humanitarian crisis represented a huge obstacle in the bid for freedom. This response was wittingly and unwittingly to the violence of the picture of emancipation, but once the federal government had embraced emancipation, whether it was tepid or not, it had occurred. The nations commitment to slavery. So i want to make two important points to counter the recent scholarship eric mentioned in a recent article in the journal of southern history. The vast majority of black people did not die in the civil war. They lived. They fought to live. They pushed past struggles in the formation of a radical politics that would inform the postwar struggle. We can go back to the worker tom host who said, if the master can try for the safety of a mobilized white majority, the slaves dared back. They were ravaged by the slave trade and arbitrary. This begins with recognition that enslaved people expected to fight. They expected they would have to fight for their freedom. They understood the brutality that had come with the making of slavery that would accompany its unmaking. That they would die and suffer many would be for any got to freedom. That their families would be again torn apart, as they gathered up their families to flee the plantation, they knew they were in for harder times. While the 150th anniversary of the civil war has now past, and for many of us, thank god, we look at postwar amendments. The work of figuring out what freedom meant remains unfinished. Civil war refugee camps are one place where we can take the temperature of this question. The enslaved people has no parallel people in u. S. History. The domestic slave trade moved one million, but that was read out over 70 years. Uprooted in the midst of war, enslaved people and free people that experienced trauma, broken and shattered by violence, they experienced a new disease environment a growing their new regimes of labor. But they also experienced more, and most of these people who ran away ended up in refugee camps, where women and children. The fugitive history of these women and children, their experience as refugees in refugee camps, and the punitive federal policy they faced understanding what freedom meant, civil war refugee camps were places of trauma, containment, discipline, surveillance and the redeployment of notions of purity and solutions. So we might work to extend, for example, these interventions about how languages of civilization and race and radical prospect resonated with in the american way. And this is a proving ground for segregation and the separation of black and native people. I went to argue that we might extend the proving ground to the civil war. Some of the men who were in the war against native americans received their basic training in the civil war against africanamerican women and children as overseers of refugee camp. For ideas about a racial containment and cultivation circulated freely. There would be tragic losses. It would be losses that have longterm political and psychological consequences. It would be women like Margaret Ferguson who came into a refugee camp in a seated and was a gangrene slag, her tibia partly exposed and would be amputated. There were women who saw slavery and life in refugee camp, decided to abort her child just as she was making it to freedom. Facing hard decisions, that exist only in the context of the hard road to freedom. There is also the revisionist historical scholarship. People look at this evidence. Some historians see them as proof of our need to temporary judgment that emancipation came. Some would see them as adjusting that freedom was too hard for black people to make it onto the ground, the making of freedom was too hard for black people to make it onto the ground, something more to extend the war they had been fighting. Id i want to ask that we back off that. That we think too about Emery Anderson how they built new refugee camps. I want to remember ashby, born a slave in kentucky and who made it to freedom and had joined to the exodus to kansas with her husband and children. I wanted to step back and to remember that it mattered that the violence suffered in the war came on the heels of a centuries long Business Model that the United States had celebrated what walter jones calls the mothering and miss naming of the enslaved people. It did not end this destruction, but it did mandate this nation would have to decide freedom anew. We make a hard turn in the direction accomplished too little to matter to much. Like all war, this generated misery and death, and it did not leave untouched noncombatants who had no arms, no plans to the professional study of the history of war. No matter how hard it was to make, freedom made an important difference. There had been and would be slavery. Other places where the process of emancipation was prolonged and contested, places where war generated refugees and atrocities, places where slaveholders would be forced to their knees. The American Civil War was not exceptional in these regards, but the history and battle for freedom in this country still remains to be fully integrated in its national and global dimensions. I want no into that here, because i know i am out of time. I went to end, though, with this idea that comes with many historians. Ordinary people did ordinary things with the most difficult circumstance. Im sorry, this comes from time. Enslaved in the border states of missouri, only 60 miles from the Union Stronghold at st. Louis, Luisa Alexander was out of the reach of the terms of the american proclamation. But she wrote her husband she was convinced freedom would come to her, that it would only come at the point of a bayonet. It was a resolution she welcomed, and a resolution through which she secured her freedom and we fought to applaud that kind of resolution. Thank you. [applause] annette gordonreed i would like to thank the organizers for of inviting me to be a part of this vibrant conference. I am always happy to share a stage with eric, giving out peoples grades. [laughter] talking about peoples age in reference to their photograph. Who are you talking about . But i am going to focus on my presentation of representations of slavery and memories of slavery in our every day environment. After the events in ferguson, after the events in charleston, as you well know, there was a sea change in attitudes, particularly in the parts of young people who wanted to write a different story or to question the story that had been told about the way we viewed memorials, symbols, things that represent slavery in our everyday life. And you know across College Campuses in this country as well as overseas that this is a global effort to try to make a difference, understanding the meaning of freedom by not accepting things that had been accepted as a matter of course. Many people, as i am sure all of you know, the famous notion that the south lost the war but one of the peace, in that they were able to rewrite the story of what slavery had in about an set the terms of engagement between africanamerican people in the south and whites in the south. It was an engagement that basically got rid of a monumental thing to get rid of slavery and people. It was a great thing. People savored that moment and struggled and tried to make lives of themselves. What also happened is white southerners were left to do pretty much what they wanted with what they considered to be there lost property. In doing that, try to be as close to slavery as possible without it actually being slavery. In the process, never really gave up the notion that their cause was a good cause. Erected monuments, had flags for all of the old south. And david blithe, as i am sure you all know, talked about the importance of reconciliation between the north and the south. That took place. Black people were left out of that. So slavery was over. We have on paper the legal right of citizenship, but not the actual accoutrements and status of citizens for a very, very long time. It is something we have been fighting for up until this particular moment. After the terrible events that i mentioned, blacks do this again to challenge the things around them that were the memorialization of slavery. My generation grew up happy to be in these places, and sort of ignored these things. But this is a different generation, and we will talk about this in the question and answer period, but really a future to claim their own. In my own university, there was a controversy about the harvard shield. The family had given land that was sold, started the harvard law school, had a shield with three bushels of wheat on it. People did not know i went to harvard law school, i had no idea what that meant when we were there. Wheat, i thought it was a symbol of fertility, knowledge and so forth. There we found out this was the shield of the family that owned the slaves. They had slaves in massachusetts as well. This story was told to Harvard Students as they came in to the first year. In the past two years, this knowledge was not known when i was there. And they decided the shield should go. At oxford, students complained about the statue of cecil rose. And it harvard it was others. The naming of buildings. Wilson at princeton, Woodrow Wilson at princeton. Yale, the controversy over john c. Calhoun. And people suggesting they should not have to be in places where people who had done these nefarious things were celebrated. There was pushed back on this from people who said that history is history, and what you should do is not erase history. By erasing these memories. Perhaps contextualize things. Perhaps leave it as it is or totally rid of it. Those were the questions that were presented. I was on a committee that had to figure out what to do about the shield. My decision surprise a number of people. In this particular instance, i wanted to keep the shield but contextualize it, but change the way people think about it. Symbols are created equal, people are not. Their desire for celebration is a line drawing function. We do that all the time. Some people can be in, some people can be out. There is some ways to contextualize things. Other things are just too awful to remain. So with questions about what goes in and what goes out, that is the conversation we ought to have. As a historian, we typically feel, or historians i have spoken to about this, tend to be against the idea of what they would call a erasing the past. The question becomes, is moving something an erasure of the past . I thought after this discussion, the shield was not like the Confederate Flag, which is an odd notion that after you lose the war, you get to continue to fly your battle flag. That you get to erect monuments to people who basically fired against, killed union soldiers, a flag that flew against the United States america. We accept it because we accepted the reconciliation david talks about as being necessary, more important than doing justice to africanamericans. People, Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow wilson actually sat in this room at a conference. A more problematic figure. Very, very racist. No question about it, a white supremacist, not a good guy. At the same time, he is the person who essentially made modern princeton, took it from being just a Gentlemans Club and made it a real academic institution. It wasnt before, but he actually made modern princeton. He was the president central to the school. John c calhoun, not so much. I said that he could go. [laughter] annette gordonreed easily could go. My advice was taken. It was not actually given on that score. It was not on that score, but these kinds of questions are sort of very much go with what we talked about this morning, this notion of black identity and how black people see themselves in this particular moment, what they are willing to accept. What young people accept. Part of this post racial notion which is problematic in some other ways also comes along with it. It is a very clear sense, clearer that i had, of themselves as being americans and having or should have, people who should have the rights of americans and wanting to create spaces for themselves. I dont want to use the term safe spaces, but i would say respectful spaces, is a good question. Part of the many struggles after the end of slavery, but the struggle to belong, to be able to walk down the street. To be able to feel comfortable in places is something i am very, very glad the Younger Generation has taken up. They, some of them mentioned earlier, how do you bridge the gap between the generations, older and younger . You dont talk to each other, use other language. Members of the older generation say this is a trivial matter. There are much more trivial things to do, and there are always no matter how you slice it, but that does not make it a trivial matter. How comfortable you feel. Are you american . Can you walk around and not have your history, your people discredited by the worship of people who did not think you are human beings . How do you settle that . I dont have any easy answers to that, but it is something that complicates the question about black identity, complicates our understanding of slavery and freedom and how we are going to take all of this in by focusing in on the human condition, the individual human conventions and the group dynamic, how people fit. And that is something that is very, very difficult i think to be settled on the question, certainly made in the pages of academic history. This is something that engages the public. It is something that engages not only the africanamerican family, it has to engage the white public as well. There has to be a confrontation, i think, a much more general and persistent confrontation to the idea that citizenship is about white. I think there is no question in my mind that is something that is still part of the generalized understanding, that africanamerican people are interlopers. They are people who are not supposed to be here. And people who are not supposed to be here dont have the same rights and sort of Comfort Level that a number of whites feel that they should have, it is not something the blacks should have. I am very, very happy africanamerican students have challenged that. It is not an easy answer. I am historian. I dont believe in destroying the past, but i also dont believe changing the names of all buildings, changing the moving statues, getting rid of accoutrements of the confederacy, having army bases named after confederate generals just an enormous concession to an ideology that we are still living under. It is an ideology of White Supremacy that i think the students and their supporters have been fighting against. So this is a battle that i dont think is going away. And i am actually glad as a historian. Thank you. [applause] eric foner we are going to turn in a second to questions from the audience. There are the two microphones up on the aisles there. People who want to contribute, please go to the microphones. While you are doing that, let me pose one question for the panelists here. You can answer yes or no if you want. Going back to john hope franklin, is emancipation the pivot of the africanamerican, of how we ought to understand the africanamerican experience in america from the early colonial period, or do we need a narrative that really displaces emancipation and puts other changes or continuities at the center . Who wants to take on that . Thavolia glymph i could start by saying there is no one emancipation. The 13th amendment, whether that should be the pivot, i dont think so. I think emancipation more broadly should be a kind of way that we can talk about, right about, established sometimes about the black experience. It could have been new york at a much earlier time. Right . Oh, i am done. Eric foner anyone else want to . Walter johnson a lot of the conceptual frame for the paper that i just summarized and the way i try to think about these things from marks essay on the jewish question, that is about jewish emancipation, the ability of jews to become citizens in europe in the 19th century. What he wrote in that essay is basically that this is the greatest historical achievement of the standing order, but it should not be confused with the genuine human emancipation. It is important to try to hold both of those things together at once. Last night, a lot of the conversation was the frame about the relationship between civil rights and black freedom, with a more thorough notion of black freedom. I want to think about these things, but i want to think about these as identical to one another but also as necessarily contradictory. Why not celebrate the extraordinary achievement of civil rights for the extraordinary achievement, extraordinary possibility of emancipation, and at the same time, insist on the notion that it is not genuine human full going motion of human freedom . So even, i actually to some degree think it is important to point out as this is something i learned from this dude, wrote this huge book about reconstruction. [laughter] Walter Johnson it is important to point out some of the foreshortened characters of freedom, but to celebrate the achievements even as we insist on a more thorough going version of actual human emancipation. Annette gordonreed i agree with that. It is the pivot, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. If you think about citizenship before that time, africanamericans dont have citizenship. They are property. It is not what walter said with thoroughgoing freedom, but we cant make the claim we can make now without the 13th, 14th, 15th amendment. That is pragmatically in our law, i think about it legally, this is transformative because you know, freedom and the wonderful light doesnt spring forth immediately. It does not change the fact that before these things, afterwards there is a change. We have no basis before then even talking about the notion of citizenship. If citizenship is important in a republic and the countries we are actually living in, you credit that as a sharp break. Eric foner thank you. First person at the microphone there. My name is Marian Anderson from concord, massachusetts. Eric foner can you speak a little closer . My name is Marian Anderson from concord, massachusetts. I represent historic africanamerican site there. I want to thank you for this wonderful discussion. I agree that it seems very difficult to start tearing down the symbols of atrocities that have been thrown on africanamericans historically. I agree in particular because of folks like jesse collins, called the invisible, like the first 14 president had slaves. If we first start tearing down symbols, it would have to be everywhere. Washington dc would have to be renamed, for example. Yesterday for example, i saw the Korean War Memorial and the individual troops in that field. It is powerful. And the beard of toni morrison, maybe we just need more memorial like that, individuals coming out of slavery walking across the field, walking away from a ship. That is my first eric foner we have to limit you to one question. Does anyone want to respond . Annette gordonreed i would say yes, we need additional monuments, but as i was suggesting before, not everybody is equally important to the United States of america. Most of the confederate generals, if there is a difference between being someone who is a founder of the United States and someone who tried to destroy the United States. So we can start with all of them. [applause] annette gordonreed that one is easy to me. It is not just from the standpoint of race. But insult to the union soldiers, people who gave their lives for the union to celebrate these people is just, it is astonishing. Other than what david talked about, this notion of reconciliation. Its much more important for them to get along and do justice for africanamericans. I dont see how thats a question. Washington is not going to be renamed. There is no country without george washington. You just have to take the bitter with the sweet and live with the reality of it. What you have to do is reinterpret and dont lie or hide things about george washington. He is not in the same category as beauregard smith. [laughter] eric one of the things people forget in this debate is the names of public monuments and buildings get changed all the time. Come visit the arena in new jersey. Its now the izod arena. Or come watch the new york state theater, but now its the david coke theater. Why . Because of money. Nobody seems to complain we are racing history when we change the name of something just cousin of money. History when we change the name of something because of money. [applause] i am a little skeptical. We should add monuments. Family statues with all of those confederate generals are there in the south of black leaders of reconstruction . The only one i know of is one of robert smalls. The absences in our public displays of history are just important as the presences and they reflect the history that a net talked about. Walter i think theres another position in this conversation between leave them up and take them down and thats the grassroots position which is to vandalize them. [laughter] walter if they society monumental lies is itself, it makes it self vulnerable. One of the things you saw across the south in the aftermath of the Police Murder of walter scott was people going and spray painting racist on these monuments. I think that is a grassroots but i kill her response. That may be a vision of how we might go forward. Annette i think thats why calhoun is so high up there. Thank you again. I am a native of tennessee. I am also a millennial. To your point about the monuments, not only is there a generational divide, there is also a regional divide. The Confederate Flag does not garner same response from me as my friends from new york or new jersey. In having these conversations, they are very passionate. I wanted you to share some of your work. You said you are on a committee at harvard. Some symbols could go in some symbols could stay, how do you gauge those conversations in a manner of civility and professionalism, where you can manage all of the emotions. Annette our conversation was very civil because we are lawyers. [laughter] it was actually a model of collegiality, it was easy because the thing i am describing here, three bushels of wheat to mean anything. What i wanted was students to be able to say and take control of the narrative of what we were having a big ceremony for our 200th anniversary. We dedicate the shield and the school on behalf of the people who were enslaved at the plantation. Notroyal plantation is about isaac royal. Its about the people who were enslaved there. Its not a picture. Its not the Confederate Flag. This was an easy one for me. It turned out not to be so easy. Separate from a person or a flag, we draw lines all the time. The speed limit is 65 or 75. We do it in our everyday life. This is a conversation people have to have to decide what can stay and what can go. There will be different views about it. I believe it can be done. Passion is part of it. You have to keep the end in mind. The community is to be comfortable for the members. If you have that goal in mind, you can put aside passion and your focus on what you want and do the best for the institution or the community. Eric the next person here . Hello. I graduated from Florida State in africanamerican studies. My question is for annette. There is a mythology going on around about irish people. People dont know the difference between chattel slavery and other forms of slavery. Annette its what you said at the end. People dont know the difference. People dont know the difference between indentured servitude. I think it comes that there was a lot of oppression of different people throughout history. Many people feel that the irish have a right to feel put upon by the way the english treated them. There is a story of struggle as well. That was not slavery by birth. Irish people are by appearance white, even though people looked down upon them, they were able to assimilate into society in way africanamericans have not then. Look what happened to me because the history of oppression in lots of different communities, this just so happens to be a central problem. Chattel slavery was a problem from the very beginning, it prevented the creation of the union. It was the rock upon which the union split. We dont have that with the irish slavery. Or irish understandings of slavery. Its a me too thing. Its a way to try to put down the africanamerican claims for rights at the present time to say everybody suffered and suffered it just as much as you did. Its a claim to oppression for themselves. There are people trying to minimize africanamericans oppression. I am from princeton university. You provoked me and i want to ask an interesting question. Youve been provoking me for a while. At the heart of your paper is rejecting a usual liberal subject rooted in the distinction between header on a heteronomy and autonomy. What would happen to our histories if we stopped reading or understanding freedom as an and as opposed to a practice . Could we actually see freedom and other conditions of domination if we see freedom is a practice rather than an end . Walter as usual, since we were long ago together in a seminar, my response is wow. Let me see if i can start to answer that. The first thing i think is in my mind to a certain extent the history of slavery in the United States has been conscripted to the history of a notion of freedom. When eric talks about history as slavery to freedom, i dont want to repudiate that notion. What we mean by freedom . When i say Economic Freedom or a freedom of sexuality or identity, all sorts of things remain part of the struggle. What we get i think is a history in which enslaved peoples subjectivity as being forenotioned into the notion of being liberal individual subjects. Many were not. Thats my first concern. The notion of freedom within slavery, if we can separate that, which i think is a problem, but from a notion i think thats an interesting and cap challenging idea. I have used in my own thought various kinds of shorthands to try to describe that place for myself. That may have philosophical baggage i dont entirely understand, but i do try to think about flourishing within slavery. That we have a history of slavery where nobody ever makes a joke . To try and imagine that space, a space which is determined by slavery and yet is orthogonal to horzaginal to its domination. A religious space would be another nat turner to me is a touchstone for me because of how profoundly obvious it is he makes the limitations of subjectivity. One could equally cite harriet jacobs. How do you try to map the categories of freedom onto harriet jacobsstruggle. They miss characterize that history. Annette its difficult to do because we are under siege. When you start thinking about joke orike its a freedom within slavery, you know that has real political consequences for africanamericans. People will seize upon that an use that as an excuse for constructing a particular way. Its absolutely clear there were people who made jokes, that people experienced something called happiness that we could recognize among themselves. Its difficult to do it from a society that is still hostile to africanamerican humanity. If we were in a different space, if we were among ourselves or people who believed in black humanity, we can have those kinds of conversations without fear. Its difficult to have that without fear knowing how it would be used. Walter i think thats what i was trying to say. Happiness in slavery, it immediately slips into this idea of the happy slave and thats why we havent talked about that. I should reference adam green, these are his ideas. If the headline it comes out, put adams name on that. Thavolia i learned something years ago. She said that she often asked her students if slaves ever had fun. I started asking my students the same question. I think we cant just sit act and say its too hard, its too tough to try to overturn this paradigm. When you ask students, it makes them think, and at some point you have to make these small incisions into the larger dialogue. It meant that they were happy to be slaves, thank you for that. Annette all throughout that, thats the struggle, to deal with people who have a different relationship to slavery, but who are enslaved. Its still tough to do it. You have to write in a way that doesnt send that message, that im glad to be a slave. Eric i am going to turn to the audience. We will take three people and make comments on their questions. Yes. High. I am a graduate student at the university of maryland. I did my undergraduate degree in history at the college of william and mary. The thing with Thomas Jeffersons statue comes up. Everyone is putting stickers all ove rhim all over him. I was that one person who felt strange because you are we starting a dialogue if were not respecting other people and how they perceive and interact with symbols and statues and places . How we balance the idea of recontextualizationi and then dialogue through different symbols and spaces . Eric yes, over here. I am with the National Museum of africanAmerican History and culture. We are examining the past and looking to the future. There are a lot of Digital Initiatives taking place. What areas do you feel there are gaps are areas we to focus our attention. The museum is involved in a crowdsourcing partnership to make the records of the freemans bureau available online. Were going to take it a step forward and we want to transcribe portions of that record to make them easily accessible to a wider audience. Is there something we need to focus on it . Records or do you have thoughts about what that initiative will transform the way in which you conduct research and the way in which the academy may change were shift . Eric the third here . Thank you. I am at the united kingdom. We are 18 months into the u. N. Decade for people of african descent. The British Government have said that while they remain committed to racial justice, they have no plans to officially record knives the decade. My question to you is much like monuments, is it important for us to recognize this u. N. Initiative . Is it for the grassroots or should we have official recognition as well . Eric recontextualization and dialogue, what should the museum be doing in terms of records of this era, and the u. N. Decade and what we should do about that. Anybody want to talk about one of those. Annette have a plan. Tell people what you want to have happen. Stickers are great. You also need an alternative and there are plenty of ways you could have monuments or a plaque or a center, whatever. The best way to do it if you are going to take something away or challenge something, it helps to have a plan. I think the history there is so rich, that should be an easy thing to do. Eric is anything going on in this country with the u. N. Decade . Here we go. I also worked at williamsburg. They have a site where it documents the slave trade all throughout from africa around to the americas. Its not just a site where you learn. If youre going to a place in the caribbean and you want to learn that history, it tells you places you can go to learn about that history and monuments you can see. Sorry. Shameless plug. Walter on the digital piece i have a small suggestion. I often use the university of North Carolina collection to look at slave narratives, which is a fantastic resource. It does not have facsimiles. It has transcriptions. I could use 19thcentury slave narrative facsimiles. I would be very grateful for that. If you look behind some of these things that seem on the one level to be white supremacist in their symbolism, you will find a deeper level of some White Supremacy. I think that in relation to the refusal of the government to offer any kind of apology for slavery. There are legal implications for doing so. There are legal implications that acknowledge slavery is a wrong perpetrated by the United States of america. It opens a legal avenue to justice claims in the United States. I would not be surprised if there is a similar thing happening. Eric the australian writer has a story about a law firm, and American Law Firm that goes to australia and gives advice to companies about how to apologize, how to draft apologies of aborigines without legal liability. We have five minutes more. We may not be able to get everybody in. My question is for professor johnson. In your book, you put slavery at the center of capitalism. Was that written as an argument for reparations . Eric next . Over here . I am from the university of washington. Thank you for those wonderful presentations. I want you to reflect on where scholarship on slavery and freedom has been and where it might go. It seems we should maybe think about what it would mean or whether we should try to articulate the study of slavery and freedom to the ongoing question of mass incarceration and to the question of the proliferation of slavery and other forms of bonded labor globally across the 19th century and up to the present moment. I was wondering if he would be willing to reflect on that a little bit. Eric one more person over here. I am from new york. I had a question about bond ship. I wanted to hear about africa. I think it connects to what they were saying about franklin. He talks about misconceptions people have about this idea of freedom. I wanted to hear more of your opinion on that. Eric these are all complicated questions. I will say, i appreciate your point. There could be or sometimes is a tendency when we celebrate emancipation as we should to suggest slavery is in the past. It is a piece of history. Unfortunately, slavery still exists today in large areas, not to mention mass incarceration. How do you link the 18th century to what is going on today is both important and tricky. Its not just to say ok, nothing has changed. We live in a different world and a different stage of capitalism. The forms in which these take are very different. I think connect and back to the past is viable. Reparations, johnson and freedom, mass incarceration. Anybody want to jump at this . Walter to begin to respond, i do think thats an overhanging question for all of us. Its a very pertinent question. Prisoners are excluded from the protections of the 13th amendment. Slavery is constitutionally legal in the nations prisons. People in the nations prisons are enslaved. That argument is being made right now by prisoners in alabama who are on strike. There are all ssorts of historical connection. There are resident symbolic connections. There is a direct legal connection. Im not certain that river of dark dreams is a text which is singularly committed to the project of reparations. I have got to say that reparations have been for me and inexhaustible source of inspiration and insight. It is colored by the idea that there isnt a clean dividing line between slavery and freedom and slavery is an active presence in our lives today. In a really interesting way, that is what the intellectual contribution has been in the reparations piece in the atlantic. This came up to the present. This is what it would look like. I think the shape of that argument has been very powerful and helpful for me. Eric i will and inspired by the question last night about one word which would summarize everything. In the 1880s, the new york labor editor went to london and interviewed karl marx. He asked what do you see for the future. Marx did not say socialism or common is in. He said struggle. Thats what i see in the future. One of the points of this history is the end of slavery did not mean the end of struggle. That will continue forever. Thank you all very much. [applause] the panel, the audience, we now break for lunch. The conference reconvenes in this room at 1 40 p. M. See you all then. Interested in American History tv . You can watch a recent program, american artifacts, wrote the white house rewind, at www. Cspan. Org history. Each week, American History tv puzzle real america brings archival films. August 28, 1963, the u. S. Information agency to march on washington for jobs in freedom and produced a documentary for foreign audiences. Films cannot be shown in the u. S. Until 12 years after their original production. Film,t, the original titled march on washington the march in washington