Jeffrey now it is a great honor to introduce our guests. What an amazing panel. Americas most distinguished historians and scholars of congress to help us understand our current vexations. Edward ayres is president emeritus at the university of richmond. He is the author of many books on the civil war and reconstruction. I will highlight one, a forthcoming book, southern journey the migrations of the american south. Welcome, it is an honor to have you. Edward my pleasure, thank you. Jeffrey Joanne Freeman is a professor of American History and american studies at yale university, where she specializes in the politics and political culture of the revolutionary and Early National period. She is a cohost with edward ayres of a Popular History podcast backstory. It is great to unite these copodcasters together. She is the author of many books as well, including the pathbreaking. As well as field of blood. Joanne, it is such an honor to have you with us. Joanne thanks for having me. Jeffrey Norman Ornstein studies u. S. Congress. His books include one nation after trump, a guide for the perplexed, desperate, and not yet departed. And there are other titles, the next one, we did at the Constitution Center. It depressed us even before we begin the program. It is even worse than it looks, how the american constitutional system collided with extremism, and, relevant for tonight, the broken branch, how congress is failing america and how to get back on track. He is a friend of the center and appears frequently on our programs. It is wonderful to have you back. Norman always a pleasure. Jeffrey let us jump right into the history of the violence that consumed the nation in general and congress in particular in the years leading up to the civil war. Joanne, we will begin with you because your book, field of blood, describes it vividly and this did the statistics you talk about are so striking. You write that there were more than 70 violent incidents between congressmen in the house and Senate Chambers or in a nearby streets or dueling grounds. There were 109 riots nationwide. Let me ask it this way, is it true that there was more violence than in congress in particular, but also the nation in general than there is now . Why was it and give us a sense of how Violent Congress was. Joanne sure. To answer your question first, this is going to be an obvious thing to say, but congress is a representative institution. It very much does reflect the ether those of the time, and the fact of the matter is in the first part of the 19th century and even the second half of the 19th century were very violent. Some of the violence you see in congress is representative of that moment. What i was interested in and what drew my attention was the amount of it and dynamic of it. You were discussing the years leading up to the civil war and it is worth noting that the violence, or at least the extreme violence begins in the 1830s. It is not a constant wave, it comes and goes, that it is the 30s, 40s and 50s that see these incidents. What is interesting, and what is totally logical, if you track who is fighting whom, initially you see one party fighting another and then over time, you see north versus south and slavery is at the center of the fighting. What struck me as interesting most of all and what shows violence as a tool in antebellum congress, is southerners knew that to a certain degree they had an advantage because they were willing to duel and were more willing to engage in handtohand combat than some of the northerners. They used that advantage on the floor. They used it as a tool of debate and would deliberately intimidate and threaten northern congressmen, and some of them would silence themselves or sit down or not stand up rather than risk the threat or being humiliated in front of the public by being threatened and having to back down. Violence was shocking all by itself, but what is particularly interesting is it was a deliberate pool of debate. Over time, what happens is by the 1850s, mid1850s, some northerners decided it would be their tool, too. Jeffrey that is such a powerful turn in the book when you describe how the decision of northerners to challenge southerners to duel and it decreased the violence, and you quote from that remarkably moving letter that you said moved you to tears, when three representatives all pledged to challenge future duelers to fight, it became known that northern senators were ready to fight. I have to say finally that we have this wonderful new exhibit on the civil war and reconstruction. We have thaddeus stevenss cane, and i quote your book on how some people would run for congress during that period on the grounds that my left hook is better and i will beat him up. Incredibly powerful. Norman, it is often said or at least it has been said by norbert mccarthy from princeton, that we are more polarized today than at any time since the civil war. You are such an expert at party systems. Can you explain what it was about the Political Parties right before the civil war that let us to be so polarized then . Norman you go back through history and you see echoes of so many of the divisions that are familiar to people today. If you look at the period leading up to the civil war and the party system, it was very much in flux. You had a whig party that ultimately was transformed into the modern Republican Party. Along the way, we had a know Nothing Party that was virulently antiimmigration. The iron and focus was on catholics, on some elements of northern europeans and part. We actually had a president elected on the know nothing ticket. Ultimately, it became though two parties we know today, or at least that we think we know today, democrats and republicans. And of course, we have that overarching issue of race and slavery. And the party stuck with that. For a while, the Democratic Party had a strong antislavery lean. We had others, copperheads, who leaned another way. But of course, it struck down into a republican with Abraham Lincoln, the president , who became the force in the Republican Party against slavery. Ed will talk about how things changed in the aftermath of the assassination of lincoln and what changed with the reconstruction period. All of those things, which were lifeanddeath issues to so many, really created a level of polarization in society. It broke down along regional lines, and those regional divisions continue to persist, but not in the same way as the parties changed and the Democratic Party, which became a more dominant party many decades later, had a merger of southern and northern democrats. But thems the but those deep divisions was there, the polarization of society and the parties. Mccarthy is right that what we are seeing now is something far more distinct than what we have seen in any other period for over 100 years. Jeffrey that is fascinating. You are teaching that the party system during the civil war mirrored the party system paired just as system. It reinforced joannes point that the violence in congress mirrored the violence in society. Your book argues powerfully that every state, except those who would advance freedom, found themselves challenged and sometimes defeated. As this history shows, black freedom advanced faster than its champions dreamed possible because the opponents of freedom proved powerful and aggressive. Tell us how it was that with each victory of the armies of the south provoked northern support for abolitionists, and as norman invited, if you could take us from the postcivil war period through reconstruction and tell us about how the party system realigned and the country became less polarized even as support for reconstruction was ultimately abandoned. Edward as norman was saying, the polarization between the democrats and republicans during the civil war, it is a fundamental fact that people tend to forget. People would say the democrats lost, they only had 47 of the vote. I think weve seen in our own time, the other half of the electorate doesnt go away when they lose. In 1864, 10,000 votes in different districts, you will see if that number sounds familiar, the election went to the democrats in 1864 after the suffering of the civil war. We forget that. Had some battles gone differently, Abraham Lincoln might not have been reelected. Northern democrats were as racist as white southerners. They hated everything the republicans were doing. The war ends. The white south said ok, we have lost, but meantime, lincolns election, Andrew Johnson becomes president , he seems to cut some slack for the white south. They go great, lets push for everything we can get, lets reinstitute as much slavery as possible. Before republicans come back into congress. Right now, there is a president running everything. This sounds familiar, too, right . Lets do what we can with this president. When republicans come back in after riots in new orleans and memphis and widespread violence against black people across the south, republicans say we cannot have lost 350,000 men for this. We must restore the purpose of the war. Because the white south was running roughshod. The white south just keeps pushing and pushing and northern republicans essay ok, it is republicans say ok, it is going to take an amendment to the constitution that you have to support. You will have to allow black men to vote and be delegates. You have to rewrite the constitution before you come back because you have shown us you are not sorry at all. You admit you were defeated but you do not admit you were wrong. You have congressional commissions who come out and talk to people across the south, and what they were looking for was rebelism. The spirit that even though lay they lost, they are still the rebels. The patterns we have seen are that are still paying out today are there. As a result, you would not have had the 14th amendment if the republicans had not felt that if they did not revise the fundamental law of the land, the democrats of the north would have joined with the white southerners. Thats what i mean. And the 15th amendment, to really make sure that you cant take away the vote. Reconstruction begins ending almost as soon as it begins. In virginia, it is over by 1870. Textbooks put the number and 1870. Reconstruction starts in 1871, 1872, and is drenched in violence. The white south brings on the fundamental change in laws recognizing that if you were a native born american, you have fundamental rights. After reconstruction comes to an end, United States settled into a pattern for a long time. Very closely contested election with the south especially around the turnofthecentury, and north and the west republican. Those are the most contested, finely calibrated elections in American History. All during the period of when people say nothing is happening. A few votes could change the outcome. It is a fundamental restructuring. But the commonality, polarization finds a way to happen, whatever the situation. Winner take all, to parties, ups two parties, us and them, a shifting, but there is a polarizing impulse in american political culture. Jeffrey so interesting. Thank you for all of that. What an important point that it was the fear of losing the games the gains of the civil war that led to the 14th amendment. We tell the story of the civil war exhibit about the debate, stevens saying we will have the majority forever and bingham saying we might lose it and we need to put it in the constitution. You described how that was a pattern for so many of the reconstruction. That warning that the losers might not go away gracefully is prescient and sobering for today. Joanne, we have a bunch of questions from our friends. Howard green says, when northerners are willing to fight back and southerners stop challenging, is that like facing up to a bully . We also have a question about whether any members of congress were trying to reach across the aisle during this time, and a question about whether in the prewar era, was slavery and an unspoken catalyst . Was slavery an unspoken catalyst . You can respond to any of those that strike you as provocative. Joanne sure. The first question about the northerners and southerners, i would say the southerners dont stop fighting. They are just thrown off their feet in the sense, because the northerners have been caving in all along and suddenly northerners were fighting back. The word bully asked in the question is right on target. That is the word people used at the time for the people provoking these fights. Bully brooks, preston brooks, that was his nickname. That is a word that is applied to people throughout this period. There was a sense that these people before the second half of the 1850s, the southerners were picking on people who could be bullied because they did not fight back in the same way. What then happens is these northerners come, and the northern congressman campaigning on the idea that they would fight the slave power. There was a reality to that in congress. That they meant it. Some of them came with weapons and literally made it clear. The document you mentioned, but i will admit made me kind of teary, these three northerners explain why they will dual from now on. The part that captured me was at the end, after describing with all of this emotion, they say we are putting this down on paper so that future generations will understand how hard it was to fight slavery on the floor of congress. So they make clear precisely what im trying to describe in the book. It is bullying, but what happens when you are being bullied . I suppose there is a simple answer, but if you stand up to a bully, sometimes it is useful to do. I also will mention other people were reaching across the aisle. There were. After a certain amount of time, that became very hard to do. You can see the mere hint at a certain point in the 1850s, that someone would reach across the aisle to someone else sometimes met by mockery, or even they will joke, but the joke will be yeah, you do that. One congressman says to another, you do that and you better tell and you better your kids to put their sunday best on because they will never see you again. There were some people trying. Strikingly to me, in the handful of years before the civil war, people were reaching across the aisle off the floor. They could not do it in the public eye, so they try to do it in a separate space, but i those but by that point, those were not issues that could be compromised. Jeffrey a reminder that compromises are only possible sometimes in private. The Constitutional Convention was in secret and you could force the compromises. But when everything is tweeted in realtime or even when the press was watching during the civil war, it is difficult. Completely fascinating. Norman, Everyone Wants to talk about the president , and we have to learn our history at the same time. Thats why i am not jumping right into modern questions. Many of our friends are asking why isnt Congress Standing up to the president today . Bill asks, how can congress tolerate the refusal of president trumps personnel to receive subpoenas to testify before committees . Should this behavior immediately have been punished with fines or imprisonment . We also have the question, how can congress regain its oversight of the executive branch . And Sarah Cunningham our first question, why is congress, especially the senate, so willing to bow to the executive . Norman, in the process of answering those very valid questions, do give us some historical context. During the civil war, it seemed congress was more ready to stand up to the president , and they passed the Civil Rights Act over the republican president s veto, and indeed impeached him because of its distaste for his policies. Compare congress being willing to stand up to the president then and now. Norman i will digress a little bit because i want to bring in more history. One thing i would say to set that context, there is a wonderful book by a historian called the first congress, and it did not consist of towering figures except for a James Madison here and there. There were a lot of pretty mediocre people. But they saw that the institution meant something and had respect and they did some remarkable things, including the bill of rights, of course. Because they had institutional loyalty. In the sense that if the constitution was going to work, they better get it going. But to step back a little bit, the constitution was set up through those compromises to give an inordinate amount of power to the south. They knew it. It wasnt just the way they set up the socalled 3 5 compromise. The Electoral College the nature of the house of representatives gave them a lot of clout, and because of the determination to maintain slavery and the aftermath, reconstruction after their power Voter Suppression. I would remind you of something most people dont realize, the house started with 65 members. It was capped in 1929 at 435. It did not change in size after the 1910 census because the southerners saw that if they kept responding to the population by adding members, it would dilute their power and give more power to africanamericans who were emerging. So they figured out how to keep the size at 435 and use their power of redistricting and apportionment, use their ability to maintain control to basically keep blacks from having any role, significant role in the south, and keep the laws of such that there would not be significant civil rights, which we did not get until the 1960s. There is a lot of history we have to keep in mind, and we also have to keep in mind that it was those southern democrats from the 1930s all the way through, really, a long period of time, 40 consecutive years of power in the house of representatives for democrats, where they built a compromise coalition against northern democrats that maintained Voter Suppression and their role in the south while giving democrats power. In the aftermath of that, as the south changed and regions began to change, it was the republicans who moved in, took over from southern democrats, and began to court voters in a way that also was focused around race and suppressing the power of race. I want to get all of