Its possible. We are all a little. Well, not all of us. But anyway thats all to say that his interest in the lie was complex but does not deny the fact that he lies i would say is the moral center of his universe and one of the moral centers of the universes in which he acted. She was the kindest most loving most forgiving most understanding woman that one could ever know and what she put up with from her man is extraordinary. It was the most embarrassing revelations about this love affair that he had with a trance and she forgave him for that. She didnt even mention it to him as far as we know that allowed him to come back into the bosom of the families which he craved. When he died in this duel the killed her to witness and experience having seen her oldest son be killed in exactly this manner before that must have been so galling and yet she lives out the rest of her days bent on the redeeming and affirming his memory and no man stood higher in the annals of history than Alexander Hamilton in her mind. Its a glorious thing. John thank you for a wonderful talk. Its been so enjoying. My question is about the idea of duels. To what extent were duels commonplace and was this dual between two high positions government officials unusual in 1804 . No comment was not unusual. I dont know exactly what the count was but i venture to say that in the 30year period surrounding 1804 that there were probably 100 duels in the Greater New York area. All of them by the way in new jersey because then as now you can do things in new jersey that you cant do in manhattan even though they are equally illegal. And so they would go across weehawken and do their battle bear. They would assume that everything would be fine but think this case it wasnt. It was this code that doesnt exist today because honor doesnt exist and therefore the need to defend it doesnt exist. For that reason is just unimaginable to us but at that time he was so ritualized in so automatic and i think frankly there were duels because there was an advocate of dueling, there was a process for dueling that nobody would have thought. Lets have a duel to settle this. We will shoot each other at 10 paces. No, they knew that this was done and therefore was done and i think this happens at times. If this sort of a cold situation, a culture buys into a notion and at any other time with any other group of people would seem utterly bizarre and get to them seemed as inevitable as the sunrise. [applause] thank you very much. I thank all of you. There are copies of this book if you would like to purchase one in the front hall and he will be glad to sign them for you. Again we welcome you to come up and take a look at the letters we have up here. Again if you want to become a member of there are pressures in the front. Thank you. Host this is booktv on cspan2 and we are on the campus of the university of wisconsin in madison. We are talking to some professors who also are authors. Joining us first is professor will jones his book the march on washington came out just recently. Professor jones march august 28, 1963, how long was that in the planning . Guest well was actually in the planning for over 20 years, 1941. The first of march on washington was planned during the Second World War and was called off at the last minute so the organizers of the 1963 march had it in mind during that entire period that they would need to revise this idea and they talked about it pretty constantly for that period and then starting in 1962 they thought for a number of reasons they would actually put it on so was a the march that was very long in the planning and well thought out and finally carried forward. Host why was at first march canceled and what was the focus of that first march . Guest its important for understanding the marches that actually happen to know what that first march was about and why was called off. The first march was just before the United States entered the Second World War so the world was happening in europe and asia. This was before pearl harbor. The u. S. Was officially neutral but the u. S. For supporting the allies are ready to surprise so this is a period that president Franklin Delano roosevelt called for the United States to be the arsenal list of democracy to support democracy by building tanks and airplanes to support europe and asia. This is a period on which this bull position affected the big depression for most americans. People have jobs. Wages are going up but for africanamericans who are shut out of those jobs in the Defense Industries this was a terrific contradiction. Here we are fighting for democracy in europe and asia and africanamericans are shut out of these jobs at home. This was the Central Point to a whole array of injustices ranging from not be able to get a job to being shut out of the armed forces. When they could get into the armed forces put into menial jobs in segregated in the ranks and of course in much of the country deprived of the right to vote to run for office segregated in public spaces in schools. A. Philip randolph who at the time was perhaps the most widely known africanamerican leader. He was a union leader and a civil rights leader and he called for this march in 1941 to protest the contradiction in the democracy so they were demanding equal access into the armed forces. They were demanding equal access to defense jobs and the right to vote, a whole are afraid of demands. It was called, the reason was called off is at the last minute initially president roosevelt refused to meet with a. Philip randolph. He refused to meet any of his demands. He said we cannot integrate the armed forces at a time we are under National Merchant sea. We cannot force private companies to hire people. We cant tell them about their employment decisions. And so he said we cant meet your demands but at the last minute when it became clear that tens of thousands, perhaps 100,000 africanamericans were going to march on the Nations Capital in the middle of this mobilization for the Second World War suddenly he backed down. What was really the most important, it wasnt the only demand that the most important demand and that was to issue an executive order that would ban defense contractor so in a company that had a defense contractor to build plan, to build weapons of the federal government had to agree to hire people regardless of their race, that religion or National Origin or their color. So this was executive order. It was not a law. It was issued as an emergency order to meet the demands of the war. And it was at the time seen as a tremendous victory. People compared to the emancipation proclamation which was another executive order. The problem with this was that because this kid was an executive order it would expire after the war. It only applied very narrowly to company that had a defense contract so was not any employer and so at the last minute a. Philip randolph said we are going to call off the march for now but we are going to remember that we can continue this march. We can reorganize this market anytime so that set up this process. This was the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement. Host how important was a. Philip randolph in the movement . Guest a Philip Randolph was the leader of the africanamerican people have been denied entrance into the most powerful unions in the country in these unions excluded africanamericans and they also excluded women from their membership. As a result of this the number of porters, these were black men that worked on a lecture he drink ours but across the country, sort of the equivalent of flight attendants today, they organized their own union and they turn to a Philip Randolph who actually, he was not a porter. He did not work in the job. He was a wellknown socialist activist. He was a political activist. He published a newspaper and they turned to him because he was a wellknown speaker and writer. He had been a shakespearean actor said he was a very good speaker. He turned to him really is a spokesperson and he became a very effective spokesperson for this growing union. At the time in the 1920s for a very small and powerless union but he really his claim to fame came when he supported the Pullman Company which operated these books returning cars to sign a contract with these borders. This was a first Major Contract that was one on behalf of africanamerican workers in the 1930s. He affiliated with the American Veterans that labor and made this a very wellknown established union. That established him and by the 1940s he was known as the leader of the civil rights union. Reporter . Host the march is often known as Martin Luther kings march on washington and that is really a name that it acquired in hindsight. At the time everybody knew and recognized a Philip Randolph is the principled leader of the march. Host what was Martin Luther kings role in the 1963 marks . Guest he was widely known as the leader of the Southern Civil rights movement, this movement that was based on nonviolent civil disobedience aimed at ending the system of jim crow in the south. He was a tremendous speaker. Everybody knew that he was of the mongol speaker but he wasnt the only end in many ways but principled leader of what we would now is the Civil Rights Movement so the Civil Rights Movement i think its important to remember was a National Movement. It was movement that was not just focused on ending jim crow on the south. It was a movement that went back to this effort during the Second World War two when equal access to jobs and really retained that effort to try to build a National Movement that could and racial inequality. In 1963 bartlett the king was very wellknown as a speak or, as the leader of this and in some ways a part of the movement when a. Philip randolph went to reorganize this march that he had called off in 1941 everybody said you had better get Martin Luther king supporter. Martin luther king said well i will support you but lets expand the march. The march is not just about winning equal access to jobs fighting employment discrimination. Its also about winning the right to vote in the south which a. Philip randolph lived in europe sitting together right to vote. But for somebody living in montgomery who were living in atlanta this was the primary goal to end the segregation at lunch counters. I think the thing we popularly associated with the Civil Rights Movement more broadly. That was the slogan for the march came from. This is a march for jobs and in some ways this was emerging of these two northern wing and southern wing. The northern wing thing accessing jobs being rooted in the Labor Movement by the brotherhood of porters and freedom coming arguing for Voting Rights arguing for desegregation and access to schools, the public spaces and in that wing Martin Luther king was the most important and prominent figure in that march. The march was a merger of these two. The actual day of the march, Martin Luther kings role was also interesting. He was the last of 10 speakers. The first was a. Philip randolph who opened by setting the tone. He explained what they meant by this being a march for jobs and freedom. He explained the importance of ending discrimination but also fighting for Economic Justice, for winning jobs for everyone for living wage jobs and raising the minimum wage and he set out but that connection between jobs and freedom. Instead of a mantra that was repeated throughout the day and all of the other speakers took up that connection and talked about the connection of racial inequality between jobs and freedom. Its interesting i think it important to remember by the time Martin Luther king came to the stage people were worn out. People had heard of. This has been going on for over two hours and that was just the event at the lincoln memorial. Before this there had been a march. There was an actual march. Posted the people there had traveled the night before so they work sauce did. It was a really exhausting experience in Martin Luther king , everybody knew that he could revive their spirits. Focus them on going home and continuing the struggle so his role was uplifting. He was chosen as that role. Everybody knew as a tremendous speaker he could do that. I think most of us have seen that speech and we can testify to the fact that this is an incredibly rousing speech. One thing thats important to keep in mind as he didnt really have to say much about the what the march was about peerbolte are the goals of this movement so that speech we remember and its the only speech that most of us know about. Many people think this was a march to get that speech. If we only room for that we really forget what the goals of the march were and we dont keep in mind the long history that i lay out in the book. Would the end that day was Martin Luther king speaking . Martin luther king was in the late afternoon. Host how long was the full speech . Guest the full speech was about 15 minutes long. He went over a lot of times. Everybody would give him 10 minutes. Everybody i think went over at this time. Host who was the most radical speaker . Guest will you now thats a really interesting question. In many ways what i would like to emphasize about this march is how radical all of the leaders were. A. Philip randolph was somebody who was a leader in the socialist party. He had been arrested during the First World War decades earlier for opposing the war. This was at the height of the cold war when being a socialist was an incredibly dicey position to bm and here he was the most prominent spokesperson for this march. Martin luther king himself he repeatedly talked about being a democratic socialist. He was somebody who was fully in line with the idea that in order to really achieve equality it wouldnt be enough to just remove the barriers to access but this would require a warrior warrior reworking of the system to ensure that people have access to decent housing and decent education and decent jobs. These were very radical ideas of the time and everybody who went to that speakers podium was on board. They wouldnt have endorsed the march and certainly their organizations would fail supported, they all represented would not have endorsed this march. This was a very radical message and one that i think we really need to remember to the important achievement of this demonstration to bring so many people together around a message that was so powerful and so radical. In many ways i think the march itself was very radical. I think probably the most militant person who was there was john lewis who is now in congress. He was the leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. He was a young man. He was a college student. The other members of his organization they were known as snake the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for college students. They were his speech was written in the spirit of snake. They wrote the speech together and they also circulated it the night before a lot of them objected to the militant tone of the speech. Placidity tone it down . Guest he did and this became an important and they Civil Rights Movement. The criticism of the speech got remembered as an example of a radicalism and the militancy of the Civil Rights Movement getting toned down in restrained actually in the book i explain an important nuance to that story which is the principle people toning down that speech were not the Kennedy Administration. They were not white liberals who are moderately supporting the march. The principle objection to the speech came from a Philip Randolph and a. Philip Randolph Deputy executive assistant. He was a person who is probably the most responsible for introducing the idea of nonviolent disobedience to the United States. He was somebodys studied this strategy that has been developed in india and he imported it to the Civil Rights Movement. In 1941 back in the first march on washington, and when he saw john lewis speech he objected to one phrase in particular which was that john lewis said this is a revolution. He said we need to march through the south like sherman did in reference to the Union General during the civil war who burned pieces of the south to the ground pretty said we need to march to the south like sherman did and burning jim crow to the ground and then he paused and added, nonviolently. This was a dramatic effect. This was the student nonviolent in coordinating committee. They were talking about arms and burning things to the ground but these references to violence were too much for a Philip Randolph and other nonviolent leaders. They said you can be militant. A. Philip randolph pointed out that he was going to call for a revolution ended his speech he did say this is a massive moral revolution for freedom but the references to violence were too much. Another objection that was raised by a lot of the