Cox richardson about her new book, how the south won the civil war, the continuing fight for the soul of america. And im a professor of history at yale university. And i will have a discussion with heather about her book and this is brought to you by the Community Outreach for over 150 years and thats some real history there. Now, on to heathers book. Her book has gotten a lot of critical praise. For example, tthe Washington Post writes, Heather Cox Richardson of Boston College describes goldwaters crusade in her masterful book. Perhaps the most important Political Coalition of the 20th century and Publishers Weekly says, though richardson underemphasizes the prevalence of racism, sexism and unequality of other parts of the country during the civil war she marshals more for the books title. Conservatives will cry foul, but critics will be persuaded. And first, i want to invite those of you out in the world listening to share your questions for heather, you can do that, typing in the a and q box at the bottom of the screen and well take as many in the second half of the program which in whole is going to last about an hour. Now its my great pressure to introduce heather cox richard zoran, professor at Boston College and writer of the popular newsletter, letters from an american. Welcome, heath heather. Thank you, joanne. I was trying to unmute myself. I want to start by thanking the Brooklyn Historical society for doing this and also to say to people watching that im incredibly excited about this. This is the first time that joanne and i have been able to do our own history thing together and i have asked her to open this way up beyond my book and not only to talk about her new book as well, but also to talk about how the past speaks to the current moment and whats going on in american politics today. Well certainly talk about my book and i will talk about her book, but well also talk about the present moment. The fact that were limited to an hour, thank you for giving it a shot, joanne. Im excited to be here, too, so this is going to be fun. Let me start with, in a sense, its an obvious question, but probably one a lot of people are wondering about right now. Even in just the two little bits i read, words like provocative, timely, so i want to start by asking, how is it that you came to write this book . Given how timely it is . You never know. And with the zeitgeist, where i came to end up on that, what happened was when i was writing my last book, the history of the Republican Party. When i read goldbergs conscience of a conservative i was gobsmacked because he talks how its run by a few really good people and the government cant get involved in things because its going to be unconstitutional and destroy certain peoples liberty and they use that word a lot and they were very, very, very similar. And while i was writing that book. I was also, you know, teaching. And i was teaching the trail of tears. The 1830 movement of pushing out of the native americans out of southeast into oklahoma so steeped that particular week in congressional conversations why it was a good thing for the indians to lose their land and forced on this deadly march so many of people died. Why this happened to be why the congress had to do this and good for the indians. It happened to be the same week that some Football Player, i dont know which one it is, some Football Player was caught dragging his girlfriend out of an elevator by her hair and i dont remember the characters at all. The things, the language was the exact same. The same excuse for this man dragging his girlfriend out of the elevator by her hair. She wasnt listening to him. It was for the good. All of those things, it was the same thing i was reading in congress about why the indians deserved to be pushed into oklahoma. And this all said to me that there was something about the day, now, that echoed other power struggles in the past. And what i wanted to get to as what created those power struggles and how did we end up in the moment today that sounded so much like the confederates had sounded, like the elite confederates had sounded in the 1860s and that of course reinforced to my mind, what i decided it had to do with language. The book is how language crease power structures and societies that permit certain people to take power. That to me, one of the reasons i was so excited about this, that to me speaks very much to what you did in the field of blood talking about the importance of emotion and the coming of the civil war, and you focused more on the earlier part than i did, really had to do with emotion. So how did you end up writing that book . Well, youre right that in a sense although the book is about physical violence in the u. S. Congress and the logic of it and the impact of it, are what struck me, when i began that book was, i knew it was going to be about congress, and violence and i didnt know how much violence there was, but the language that people were throwing around and the response to the language isnt just in the historical record. You could see how, in the case of my books, southerners were really strategically and deliberately using language to intimidate or silence or manipulate people who disagreed with them and the way that works, it works really well and in part, thats because it relied on emotion and it so often works. Fear or humiliation are things that if youre in congress and youre performing before a national audience, if you want to, you can manipulate that to really shape what someone is able to do. So, kind of along the same lines of what youre talking about, but i was rah he will interested in doing in my book was looking at the real dynamics of what was going on in congress and how that was shaping politics overall. You used the word bullying, again and again and again, its bullying behavior and what im arguing is the way that bullying takes shape, at least, not even initially, but always takes shape is through language, you know, the way you put things, the way you say things. We talk now days a lot about gaslighting, what youre doing is shaping through the use of language to bully them. And it is astonishing to me the parallels between the past 1850s, not all the past because we dont always do, but 1850s and where we are right now. Sure, i think about that all the time even in the realm of bullying. And the reason why its effective in politics is because you dont have to exert force. You have to make clear that you could exert force if you want to. Its about the threat, right . If youre a bully, youre suggesting you could do really ugly things. If you wanted to, but you dont have to do them, you just have to be sure that the person being bullied, understands that and will respond to that, its a brilliant way to manipulate people and when it works, it really works. I need you to do me a favor now. Oh, the threat that, you know, ill do that, but i need you to do me a favor though. Yes. And its like i couldnt do this to you, or i could do something to you. Right. Or we could get along. Yeah, yeah, as long as you do what i want you to do. Yes, yes. Now, whats an example in your book, you talk in one of the things that i think we both share in our books is this fascination with language and the power of language and the ways in which we dont we take it for granted, but its a force of shaping politics, what is an instance in your book of a moment when it really struck you that language in and of itself was having a shaping influence . Well, the there are two places it really shows up. Its kind of everywhere when you think about it and when people study it, its very hard to say this matters. Because you cant, you cant quantify it, we all know it matters, somebody said to me once, in one of my earlier books, you never quantified how this was important. I understand that. This would of been in the 80s or 90s, can you stand me right there and tell me rush lame beau doesnt matter . Of course he matters, but we cant measure it. Does that mean we shouldnt study it . You know . So the places that jumped out at me, in 1954, and the 1954 professor because so much happened in 1954. In 1954 right after joe mccarthy goes, crashes and burns in the mccarthy hearings because people once and for all they see him, they dont just hear him, its not just the language that prettyies up, people look at him and say hes a thug, hes a bully and we dont want to have any part of him. And they have a book with mccarthy, he might have been rough around the edges, but the conservative movement and capitalize because Movement Conservativism and the new deal, we see that play out now. They write this book and say we conservatives have to stand against what they call liberalism. By liberalism, they meant everybody else, the democrats, the eisenhower republicans. This is in a time in 1954 eisenhower republicanism looks good. We have the highways and jobs, not everyone, it hit people of color, it didnt do that for people of color, but people who i grew up with, werent skilled workers. But the g. I. Bill as i grew up, the printers and anything else they couldnt do without an education, and wasnt attainment in the depression. And there was a book, we conservatives are standing against you liberals, thats basically everybody else and they do Something Interesting in the book, thats the first time theyve capitalized being he conservative and liberal and people just talk generally about were all liberal and thats, you know, you know, a literary critic says you cant talk about liberalism because everybody is a liberal in these days and its the promoting infrastructure like the interstate highways. We all agree with that. Democrats and republicans have different ideas which part of that is more important. Everybody thought of themselves as liberal and they capitalize it and say these guys are essentially like the communist party in china. Theyre a party, theyre taking over america and that powerful construction and at the time it was this the book itself was not terribly wellreceived. Really, mccarthy is a good guy . It does get a lot of attention, but of course, by now, the idea of being a liberal, you know, remember in like the 80s, people used to call you the lword. Dont call him the lword and now its this epithet and you can see being constructed. That was one moment and in the 1990s, Newt Gingrich, they were in charge of, i dont want to use indoctrinating, but a word like that, they were the coaches for the new republicans, the newly elected republicans to kind of socialize them into the Republican Party and what they do, is they actually circulate a document with all the words that they should use when they talk about democrats. And those are words like traitor, and lazy, and special interest, and angry, and all of these really negative words and then they have a list of words they should talk when they talk about republicans and republican policies and they were patriots, fiscally responsible, family, happy, you know, its all of this good stuff and you could literally see the Republican Party under Newt Gingrich, when they write out the traditional republicans that they label rhinos, even though its the other way around, Newt Gingrich and the Movement Conservatives are republicans in name only. Very powerful language. You could literally see them using language to divide the country in two and to label half of it as negative and half of it as positive. So, it really, thats, those were the two touchstones for me, but im trying to remember. Theres you talked about a similar touchstone, i think, in field of blood didnt you . Certainly, what youre describing is what i talked about, too, and the scenario you describes with ache laj, the people creating a you in leave by creating this. Yeah. So, its fascinating. So just capitalizing those words helps to suggest theres a it there and conservatives and liberalism is not just words, theyre capitalized and the power of that is in a way, whoever is reading it doesnt necessarily have awareness of the power. That they become a it just lie looking at it. And that comes back to politics, if youre affected by that, still, then youre basically finding a way not just to create a us and a them, but to plug people into assumptions and emotions that are going to play well for you. Right . Because words are like a direct drill, they can be, right into emotions, responses, right into things that you arent necessarily going to process, right . And so, one example. Actually, in my first book, and its, you know, its which is called affairs of honor by the way, i loved it. Affairs of honor, National Politics in the new republic. One of the factors of democracy and one of the abilities of democracy is one of the important languages, democracy is about power and persuasion, by definition its more vulnerable and powerful. And all of that back to the republic, theyre playing a kind of games with words. And even in the first 10 years of the government. Theres the federalist, and the Federalist Party in the 1790s, is in a sense more elitist and more big money driven and discome fitted by discomfitted. And if anyone uses the word aristocrat, youre done because that plugs into so many other thin things. In late 20th and 20 to century the word was taxes. Another great moment where holt said people were not that concerned about taxes by the 1980s but if you talk about taxes it conjured up this idea that somehow the taxes of hardworking white people are going to go into the pockets of lazy people of color and feminists. We even have a conversation i was the political operatives lee atwater who talks about it and he says by 1968 you cant use racial epitaph although he uses the racial epitaph in this quotation. Says you cant go out and say vote for me or youll have to deal with this. He says, so we generalize it. We Start Talking about busing. People knew which were talking about peggy said you could take one more step back and you Start Talking about taxes and people are like i care about taxes, when you talk about taxes it is not, you write it down on paper study it in congress, it is not carrying the package of this long history of American Fear of an underclass redistributing wealth. But the reality is by 1980 when americans here republican politicians swearing they will never raise taxes and the democrats want to take money from the makers and give it to the takers it is absolutely coded racial language. All you have to do and even now to some degree all you have to do to make sure we dont have social welfare legislation is to say, do you want your taxes raised . There you go. And had a 50 years of American History is right on the table with that three letter word. And deploying it is the key to a certain kind of politics. Its so effective because we see the all the time now. Someone will Say Something and youll see in social media will say dont wiggle. Other people say no, its not. The person is just referring to x, y and z. It probably estimates have coded message but the fact that can be argument about that shows the power of that kind of attack. And diversion because you can say i dont know what i meant. I remember when people started using what we knew as the okay symbol as a white power symbol. I remember the first time i read that thinking no, ive been doing that my whole life. By the time you started seeing get in all these places you are like oh, my god, youre right, that is a dog whistle. Its a time of ambiguity where if you said it was a white power symbol, especially older people look to june when two people are social justice warriors, and it was way to deploy that symbol in such a way that it was a doubly powerful. Only were you calling your people to you but anybody who called you out on it then had on if all people say no, youre being paranoid which is one of the weight language works. Thats why we keep talking about gas lighting. Thats exactly out gas lighting works. Just that you were saying, the weird ambiguity about this amino care something more, in that early time it seems no, it seems something more. Buy some logic come to some people youve declared your loyalty. He planted yourself from where just by asking a question which is a fair question but which flies right into the us in the demonstration, thats shaping politics. It was striking what is working on my book the degree to which people at the time understood this kind of power. In the late 1850s when were moving up towards the civil war, i found a lot of members of congress and others outside of congress saying to each other over and over again we have to control our words, which is a striking thing to hear if youre talking about people in a crisis and worried about the beginning is going to collapse and theyre saying watch your words. Thats like testimony to have power and emotional power on a high level and on a popular level was well, theres a southerner in that late three te refers to words being spoken in congress as missiles. He says to her northerner dont send missiles at us. We will have bloodshed. Hold off on the missiles. I think the power of that, its so easy to not acknowledge it. In the 19th century they studied rhetoric. People like Joshua Chamberlain from the famous professor of rhetoric, they literally studied how to use words to mobilize populations. We let that go in early 20th century and ive got on the back of the shelves the whole series of books on famous orations in history. You could take his home and study them. The fact we permitted that to be, the study of it to be forgot but also for it to be deployed by people are acting in such a way that most americans are not aware of it is really deeply automatic. I saw today there is a new ad out from the Trump Campaign that is really, really misleading. It has chopped all kind of stuff up that is not historically accurate it makes people sound like they are saying things that they are not saying. I will give a great example from a book you and i both know were somebody use the quotation and it is entirely accurate except he took up the word not, which is, well, hes like its true. Except for the little word not which kind of mattered. One of the things i focus on