Well, good morning, everyone. Welcome. Thank you for coming out on a rare, warm winter morning in new york. I am delighted to be with my friends and colleagues. There are no three people in the United States who are, who know more about this subject, have been more insightful about it, have produced more about it and articulate its lingering issues and controversies for the benefit of all of us, indeed, and watch on cspan and other venues. David particularly in his book race in the union, has examined the postwar culture in america and eric has literally written the book reconstruction. Ednas wonderful new book that takes a look at lincolns evolution on this issue, where it took the country. Let me start by observing something that you all know, which is we are living in or maybe living through is a better phrase an era in which raw emotions are being continually laid bare about the status of americans, race relations, refugee status. We all know recent examples. Let me tell you about one that occurred some months ago, but may have slipped through the cracks as we focus on current events. In the summer, Hillary Clinton was appearing in iowa, defending her choice, interestingly, as Abraham Lincoln as her favorite president. They asked secretary clinton, who is your favorite president . She said, im sorry, bill. Its Abraham Lincoln. Why, she was asked. She said because he was willing to reconcile and forgive. I dont know what reconstruction would have been like if he were alive, i think it would have been less rancorous and more tolerant. It would have been good if she had stopped there. But she said instead we had reconstruction. We had racism and jim crow. We had people in the south feeling defiant. I really do believe he could have put us on a different path. Within hours, one blogger said, clinton, whether she knows it or not, is telling a racist vision of American History which held sway until recently that reconstruction was a mistake brought on by vengeful northern radicals, resulting in a savage and corrupt government which, in turn, left former confederates, as clinton put it, discouraged and defiant. A new York Magazine blog said, did Hillary Clinton channel a dixie view of reconstruction . As they say in the news business, she walked it back, but it does linger. Lets start with edna, if we can. What is the evolution of historiography on reconstruction, and why is it still misunderstood at this point . It is a very generic question, but lets start there. Edna i think we are very much influenced by the dunning school, the school that came out of columbia university. Its really great that eric has corrected all of that. Dunning and his students argued that reconstruction was a tragic error because black people ignorant, uneducated black people dominated reconstruction politics in the south with the assistance of the carpetbaggers, men and women who had come from the north, and local republican scalawags, as they called it. And as a consequence, there were policies that were put in place that were detrimental to southern whites. And so, that is why it was a tragic era. It did take eric and other historians coming later to correct that, to indicate if it was a tragic era, it was tragic because of what had happened to africanamericans, or what was not realized, a promise that was unfulfilled. I think in a lot of ways we still operate under that misconception of what reconstruction is, so as well educated as Hillary Clinton is, she even was caught up in that alternative fact. [laughter] edna and so, we try those of us who are teaching in universities try to correct that, but i think students get so much of their history all of us get so much of our history from film, and we remember gone with the wind and birth of a nation, and we still believe that there is some truth to that. Harold eric, what was the reconstruction what was the state of reconstruction study when you were a student . Eric thank you for saying that. I am not the only one who tried to correct the old mythologies. You have to go back to w. E. B. Dubois. And even earlier than that, there were others challenging what we call the dunning school. As edna said, the problem today is there is a vast gap, maybe bigger than any other period of American History about what scholars think about reconstruction. The old view is no longer live in universities, in textbooks, in scholarship in this era, but there is a gap between that and kind of a sentiment Hillary Clinton, i do not expect politicians to be experts on every aspect of historical interpretation, but she was just channeling what was, is still a sentiment that is out there. Although my feeling is, lecturing a lot about reconstruction, the problem is not the survival of the dunning school, as we call it, but ignorance altogether. People do not know anything about reconstruction. It is overshadowed by the civil war. And also, as david blight pointed out in his great book some years ago, i think quoting howells, americans like a tragedy with a happy ending. Reconstruction was a tragedy, although as edna said, not that it was attempted, but that it did not succeed. It does not have a happy ending. It is hard to assimilate reconstruction into the picture a lot of us want to have of American History of onward and upward, you know, rights expanding, freedom expanding, Getting Better and better. After reconstruction, things got worse for a long time. The main problem right now is lack of knowledge of reconstruction. Our job as scholars is to spread as much information as we can. Harold david, you have to take some responsibility because hillary, after all, went to Yale Law School david before my time. [laughter] harold but you have written powerfully that reunion and reconciliation were more important to those shaping opinion in the 1960s and 1970s then equality and citizenship than equality and citizenship. Expand on that. David the stakes of reconstruction is this master narrative of American History. We do all wish we lived in a narrative of progress. The 19th century especially was supposed to be a century of progress, but it had this hideous, horrible civil war in the middle and the reconstruction period which became chaotic in many ways an incredibly violent in other ways. What is in that Hillary Clinton quote and im not blaming her for this. This is what other people do. The speed from 1865 into the jim crow era, and look what we had in the aftermath. We had jim crow. Yeah, but we had this amazing experiment of reconstruction where the constitution was truly rewritten. We live under the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments. We live under the constitution created in washington more than the one created in philadelphia. Thats a huge achievement. That is what everyone has said now for half a century. But also reconstruction involves constitutional flux and chaos. It involves it is the worst domestic violence, mob violence of American History. We have a hard time incorporating that into broader narratives of what we would like American History to be, and it involves race. For years and years and years and im sure you two have done this and graduate oral exams with graduate students, youve got to give them the questions and i always say, so, why is reconstruction such a difficult period for historians . Why is it so topsyturvy and how we interpret it . Generally the students take a few seconds, they take a gulp and they say, race. I say, well, yeah. Ok they say, it is americas first great racial reckoning. The war and emancipation forced the United States to define who black people were going to be as free, as citizens, were they going to have rights. It was not a white nation anymore. It was the first major racial reckoning, and we did some of it very well for the time. And it failed as well because of the political culture and the lack of a political will to sustain it. Its a difficult period to fit into the broader narrative of progress and ascension. We always want our history to be ascending. God, no matter what happens to us, we recycle that. Even this recent election sorry. [laughter] david i mean harold well, lets start. David i didnt mean to do that. [laughter] harold lets talk about a different president we can discuss at the Historical Society more more easily. David sorry. Harold its all right. Its inevitable. So, lincolns absence from reconstruction is one of the great what ifs. We can go there if you would like. But lets start with lincolns reconstruction plans as early as 1864 when he vetoes atop congressional reconstruction plan vetoes a top greek and a top congressional reconstruction plan. Andrew johnson, it ultimately leads to his impeachment. But judging what he said to wade davis and his own plans, where is lincoln taking the country as the war winds down in 64 . Edna its really debatable. Just to look at the 10 plan, and it looks like he is willing to do, in fact, what Hillary Clinton suggested, that he is willing to forgive and forget and bring people back into the nation as quickly as he can. That is part of what the whole 13th amendment, was where he had to get this done before the next Congress Comes in. He could have waited. But if you look at what he was doing three days before he dies, and he is talking about Voting Rights for certain segments of the africanamerican population, it suggests that he is willing to move much more quickly. But if we look at lincoln longterm, if we look at what he had done throughout the war, and what he did before he became president , we would have to assume that he was going to follow a very cautious plan. And so, he might not have been willing to have black codes implemented, for instance, but he certainly wouldve been much more conciliatory to the south. I think that is the direction he was going in. That might not have voted boded well for africanamericans. Because we know the 14th and 15th commitments are passed because you have a president that is so weak 14th and 15th amendments are passed because you have a president that is so weak and congress is able to take over. I do not know that lincoln would have insisted on the 14th and 15th amendments so quickly. Harold just one point, the speech that edna was referring to, from a window in the white house, lincoln talks about limited black Voting Rights. It sounds like means testing in a way. The very intelligent and those who served in the army, but it is the first time any american president has talked about extending Voting Rights to people of color. And it is true several sources, including testimony at the johnson impeachment trial suggested that John Wilkes Booth was in the audience and did say that is the last speech he will ever make. Im not sure he said the other thing that is attributed to him about negro equality without using a more unpleasant word then negro, but he did say that was the last speech he will ever make. Eric, you have traced this eric my view is this is all counterfactual history. Harold right. Eric no, in terms of what would have happened if lincoln had lived. I resist the idea he had a plan of reconstruction, if by that you mean he figured out what he wanted to happen once the war was over. During the war, lincolns view, plan for reconstruction was predicated on getting these two major objectives to read one was defeating the confederacy and the other is ending slavery. Especially after the emancipation proclamation. Once the war ends, those are not the issues anymore. Its impossible to know what lincoln would have done on the as david said what does slavery actually what does the end of slavery actually mean in terms of the status of africanamericans in society . Lincoln was a mainstream republican. Unlike Andrew Johnson, he represented the heart of the Republican Party. He had his finger on the pulse of northern Public Opinion and Something Like the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was passed with virtual unanimous support of republicans in congress, i cannot imagine lincoln vetoing that. He vetoed wade davis, but that was the end of the session. That was a strange thing. I think the Civil Rights Act, lincoln would have gone along with that. When you get to the 15th, maybe not, but that is four years later. The thing about reconstruction, it was a totally dynamic situation. The situation was changing radically as time went on. You know, people who were totally opposed to black suffrage in 1865 endorsed it two years later. You cant freeze lincoln at the moment he is killed and say that is what lincoln would have done for the next four years of his presidency. Everything was changing rapidly and one thing we know about lincoln is he was an openminded guy and he had changed and he was willing to change, unlike Andrew Johnson who was totally inflexible and stuck in a mold and would never move away from it here it i dont find it difficult to imagine lincoln and Congress Working out a plan of reconstruction that would have looked very much like the Civil Rights Act and 14th amendment. What would have been the reaction of the white south to that . Who knows . You can speculate all you want, but youre moving further and further from actual history. David lincoln also would have been reacting to the murders, the riots in riots in new orleans. It was not just a Andrew Johnsons instruction. Lincoln would have had to record those as well. And they were being flooded by letters from the south, the Freedmens Bureau saying, you have to act. You have to do something. But my favorite answer is that lincoln would have written a memoir. [laughter] david and everything we say about him would begin there. Harold there would be about 25,000 fewer books. He would have written it. And you would have been out of business. [laughter] eric you believe peoples memoirs . Harold some. Parts of some. Instead we have the reality of Andrew Johnson. But the record is filled not bulging with, but it includes comments from progressive republicans that say lincoln was a wonderful man, but maybe gods hand is in this because he would have been weak. He would have been too conciliatory, too forgiving. Lets talk reality here. Where was his where was the Tipping Point between his antiwealth position and his racism and why were lincoln they so wrong about him in the beginning s great mistake lincolns great mistake, his Vice President. Edna i guess we have to look at why he chose him as Vice President. He was in a situation with tennessee he has done a great deal to keep that part of tennessee loyal to the union, even though there is the other half that is not. In a sense, he is giving a gift to that group of tennesseans for what they have done for the nation. I dont know that at that point he was wrong. Certainly this is an instance of a man who becomes president who is not prepared to be president. Imagine that. [laughter] harold pregnant pause for a reaction. Ok. Edna im sure lincoln never expected he was going to even though he knew they all had dreams and all the rest. Im sure when he chose that person as his Vice President , he did not expect he would actually get the opportunity to be president. Harold right. Its even questionable whether he there is no smoking gun in history that suggests he affirmatively chose johnson the way that president s today choose the candidates. But two of his secretaries took credit for carrying that message to the convention, and lincoln did not need a northerner on his ticket to balance him anymore. He need a southerner to balance the quintessential northerner. They should have vetted him more. Harold you know, they could. By the way, the vetting was available. You look at johnson, the only prominent southern senator who stays loyal to the union, but if you read his speeches, there are filled with racial invective. Eric oh, yeah. He also said, i will be the moses of the colored people of tennessee and i will leave them into the Promised Land of freedom. You can find some racist comments in lincolns as well. I think johnson at the moment is the worst president in American History. He could be superseded. As edna said, he was not cut out for the job, which is sort of the basic problem to begin with. Some of the radicals did think that johnsons reputation, when lincoln was killed, he said over and over again, treason must be made odious. Traitors must be punished. People traitors must be punished. He had risen in tennessee as a spokesman of the poorer whites, many of whom resented these planters who were deeply resented these planters, and who were deeply racist. And theres the question harold raised, why did he change his mind very quickly . Soon he is offering pardons to these rich guys and allowing them to get elected to office even though they have not been pardoned. Nobody knows. Johnson did not leave a memoir either. Did not write letters, did not keep a diary, did not confide in people. What was going on in his mind, we do not know. My supposition based on the evidence i have seen is johnson was very alarmed by what we would call an upsurge of black activism in the south in 1865. I mean, it was chaotic, as david said. There were places, including tennessee, where former slaves were seizing land for themselves. There were places they were demonstrating and marching for the right to vote. There were places they were challenging discrimination on streetcars. And this kind of that was not what johnson had in mind. Johnson that, yeah, they are free, absolutely. Now they should go back to work on the plantations and not bother anybody and they will get paid wages or something, but they are not really part of the body politic. I think johnson came to realize or feel that only the planter class could keep blacks under control, so to speak, from his point of view. The poor whites could not do that, from eastern tennessee. What you said, you guys have to exert, put a racial order in place in the south again. You cant very well say, you cant hold office, you cant vote. I feel it was black activism that pushed johnson away from his hostility to this rich class and instead of aligning himself with them, which he had done by the end of 1865 when congress then mates, and many republicans are pretty alarmed that the kinds of things johnson has allowed to happen in the south. Harold david, before you answer, the man about whom youre writing the biography, Frederick Douglass, goes to the second inaugural about whom youre riding, Frederick Douglass, goes to the second inaugural goes to the address and tells lincoln it was a sacred effort. He also sees lincoln taps johnson who was apparently inebriated, he taps and he says that he sees from johnson a look of intense hatred. He knows something that lincoln did not know at that point. David Frederick Douglass is our only source for that at that point, which is fine, but he is riding in 1882. He is writing that in 1882. He could put a spin vast johnson hated me already. But one thing we have to say about Andrew Johnson, he had fundamental beliefs and values, and that was a problem. [laughter] david one was white supremacy. It is rigid white supremacy. He did not want black people to have any Political Rights whatsoever. He had a vision for postemancipation that was some kind of peasantry. But the second one we have not mentioned, states rights. He is a fundamental states rightist. You might say, wait a minute he was so against secession. But secession was political suicide. He was right about that. But other than that he in no way one of the power of federal government expanded. The reason he is so hostile to the Freedmens Bureau, had so many more vetoes than the previous president s put together was he thought this was an egregious overstepping of federal power and that is fundamental to his view of governing. And he is up against the republicans especially the radical republicans, this vision of government as an engine and they have been practicing this through the war years, government as an engine of social change, government as an engine of economic expansion, government as an engine of political and civil change. The conflict with johnson and congress is race, for sure. But also two fundamentally different visions of the constitution and federal power, and that gets him on a road to well, impeachment. Eric i totally agree with what david said. And despite our low view of Andrew Johnson, we hear Andrew Johnson in our politics today. Read Andrew Johnsons veto of the Civil Rights Act. Its not exactly the same wording, but its basically this is reverse discrimination. Congress is giving rights to black people which is discrimination against whites. They are taking the idea that expanding the rights of those who have not had them is taking something away from white people, is Andrew Johnsons idea. You heard that since the Civil Rights Era. You heard this in our president ial Campaign Last year. These are state issues. This is the dilemma the republicans face. Civil rights in the right to vote in all of these things were traditionally rights governed by the states. The federal government had nothing to do it that before the civil war and johnson is upholding that view of the constitution. Yeah, if a state was to give black people the right to vote, they can do it, but its not the federal government. They had to rewrite the constitution to give the federal government power to really protect the rights of all americans and johnson is bitterly opposed to that. And again, you hear that voice and some of our political debates right now. David we have students read the johnson veto message to read you dont have to tell them. They say, that is what they say now. Got it. Eric mmhmm. Edna i agree. I dont know that it is as complicated as all that when it concerns johnson. If that is the position lincoln is taking, i would believe it is about states right. About states rights. Johnson is no lincoln. It comes down to race issues. This man might be willing to see freedom. He is not willing to see a quality. It is about that. That is the bottom line. David but johnson, as a member of eric but johnson, as a member of congress, he voted against giving aid to the starving people of ireland. Harold lets think about another character. Ive always been fascinated with his journey, well, maybe his up and down journey. He agrees to a post appomattox surrender that retreats from federal policy on emancipation. William t. Sherman agrees to a surrender that retreats from federal policy on emancipation. Then he or around the same time agrees that land should be given, 40 acres and a mule should be given to free africanamericans and then loses interest. In fact, doubles back away from that idea which he agreed to. Typical journey or is sherman an anomaly . How do we judge his peculiar odyssey . Sherman is a strange fellow as you know. He also used africanamerican troops to march through the carolinas and demonstrated a biracial union army. He didnt like it. He didnt like it but he used it. He was practical. Sherman as you know lived in the south before the civil war and he understood as some northerners didnt the that this was going to be a gigantic war and it would not be very easy to defeat the confederacy. There were many people at the beginning, one battle and thatll be it. You know, you read what he said about the march. Youve got to whip, get into the recesses of their mind and make them fear us and all this kind of thing. Sherman was not a politician. I think, you know, unlike grant he didnt quite understand the importance of the civilian control of the military so to speak. He was pretty deeply racist. I think thats clear. You know, i dont think he actually had a heck of a lot to say about reconstruction later on. Wasnt he fighting indians much of the time in the west . Harold well, the 40 acres and the mule thing. That was january, 1865. That was important and obviously because these black ministers he met with said, hey, we need land. It was also to get these blacks away from his army. He had thousands of black. And the slaves following the army. No army wants that. Sherman left that historic meeting, this is in savannah, one of the most extraordinary moments in the civil war. Sherman and his general staff meet with 20 black ministers and pick their spokesman, Harrison Frazier and have this colloquy, an amazing exchange. But sherman left the room early. We dont know for sure exactly how the 40 acres got into the field order but he left the room. This was worked out by his staff. It wasnt like sherman stood up and said, give them 40 acres and a mule. Nonetheless, it was called sherman land. It was called sherman land until Andrew Johnson took it away. Thats the important part of it. I think, more important, to me, than why sherman does it, he does do it, it becomes a field order, and the land is made available to some africanamericans and then its take anneway. Because there is that land distribution during this period, that economic independence never occurs. And thats why reconstruction was a failure. But it also is interesting, weve talked about this, harold. What did lincoln say about shermans order 40 acres and a mule . He didnt say anything. He let it go. He didnt say, hey. What a great idea. On the other hand he just threat happen. That is lincoln. He was always willing to see without taking responsibility. Okay. Lets see what happens on this land. That is lincolns flexibility which johnson of course lacked. And another means of winning lincolns reconstruction ideas were about winning the war. Right. And of course the hypocrisy of rescinding the order is evident in early American History when white settlers get free land and black settlers get free land and then have it taken away with no rights. Thats one of those tragic stories of reconstruction, of course. The person who is getting an extraordinary amount of renewed attention and focus as a hero of reconstruction is ulysses s. Grant, at least through the decisive giveaways of 1876. Talk about grants battles against the klan as the klan takes hold. Tell us about grants journey from a strict military man who believes in civilian oversight and is taking his orders from lincoln to a man who pursues racist and organized resistance and has a Standing Army in the south. An army of occupation. He is for an army of occupation. For a while. Harold for a while. At first. Well its true. Grants, i dont know if its his finest moment. Appamotox is his finest moment. Yeah, he did all right there. David but the decision to go after the klan particularly in south carolina, to mobilize the military, to move american troops back into the south as Ulysses Grant is a major step. To set up a system by which the perpetrators of klan violence would be prosecuted. The famous ku klux klan hearings which is one thing about reconstruction i suspect 99 of americans dont know anything about. The most amazing set of hearings the United States has ever conducted. In seven states with tribunals of congressmen. They collected 14 volumes of testimony about klan violence. This was all done under the grant administration. And in effect they did put klan out of business, at least in those regions during the middle of reconstruction. It revives in different forms and different names and different methods and again in the 20th century. May have had another little revival. Who knows . So, yeah. I mean, grant did essentially agree with the reconstruction acts, the reconstruction plan. On the other hand, he hoped it would all work and just get it over with. Let us have peace was grants slogan of the 1868 election. And amazing how early you could even employ that phrase, let us have peace. Always a good idea but there wasnt peace yet. The 1868 election when grant is elected is probably the most violent election americans have ever seen. Theyll have a couple more coming in reconstruction that are just as bad. He gets elected amid tremendous political violence. Edna does it have something to do with the fact the Republican Party is attempting to maintain its presence in the south and the klan, of course, is really challenging that . By going against all of these black david kill a black man you kill his vote. Edna so as leader of the Republican Party certainly he would have a reason to do that. Absolutely. Which is one reason lincoln is talking about the franchise in 65 because the Republican Party as he sees it can become competitive in the south with black voters. To go back to a point david made before, the laws that Congress Passed authorizing grant to use marshalls and troops to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, the enforcement acts of 1870 and 1871 were kind of the furthest edge of National Power you could go to in this period. They made individual crimes like murder, federal crimes. Even today theres a lot of debate about that. You know, congress, i mean the Supreme Court not long ago well, some years ago but in the early part of the century overturned the violence against womens act based on reconstruction decisions saying, no, no. Thats a state problem. Yeah, violence against women is terrible but its not a federal problem. There is no f. B. I. Yet. Eric here theyre using federal power to go after individual criminals who are assaulting or murdering black people and there are a lot of people who thought that was too much. In a sense grant is trapped because northern public sentiment is moving away based on what grant said. Hes defending the Republican Party but what is the Republican Party going to do when northern Public Opinion is no longer so willing to intervene in the south and is no longer willing and is beginning to think that reconstruction experiment maybe was a mistake. In 1875 when there is all this violence in mississippi, a black congressman from mississippi goes to grant and says if you dont send troops to mississippi well lose mississippi. And the Republican Party, and he says, grant says, yeah. I can send troops and keep mississippi but if i do that, ill lose ohio. Ohio is a lot more important to the Republican Party than mississippi. So in a sense, grant is trapped by the end of his presidency in that there is no longer public support for the kind of vigorous intervention which would have been required to put down the violence. Thats interesting. Sort of grants lbj moment in the reverse. Eric exactly. Keep the north. Talking about 6465. David we pass the Civil Rights Act well lose the south. Eric right. David anyway harold so is Frederick Douglass active as an activist, as a spokesman for black rights during reconstruction . Maybe a softball question but i think we should bring him into the story. And you mentioned, also, an africanamerican congressman. I think 15, 16 members of congress, members of color during that period . Eric weve been talking about National Politics but what is really remarkable, what is going on at the local and state level, it is the first moment you might almost say of genuine democracy in American History. Harold you have these interracial governments, africanamerican harold on the state level as well . Eric yes. Two in the senate. 16 in the house of representatives. Black sheriffs and justices of the peace and members of legislatures and you have a lot of white people, also, in these governments obviously but this is actual democracy at work. In a society that had been a Slave Society until a few years earlier. Its an unbelievable transition. And its not surprising. It generated a lot of resentment among people who were more devoted to the old order. Reconstruction . Yes, yes, and yes. A radical republican by any definition. He believed in an interventionist, activist government. David he wanted suffrage immediately. He didnt want it limited. He gets into terrible battles of course with the leaders of the womens suffrage moment, lezz Elizabeth Cady stanton in particular, because the 15th amendment ultimately is only for black males was a big fight for a while. They will later reconcile. Douglass moves to washington in reconstruction. He moves there permanently in 1874 when his house was burned in rochester. But hes moved earlier really and he edited a newspaper in washington called the new national era for three years. His sons ran it. It ultimately failed after about three years but the new national era is a fascinating newspaper they kept alive as a sort of an africanamerican monitor of reconstruction issues. Its one of the best sources we have of those years. He became deeply disappointed in the 1870s. I mean disappointed is a tiny word. Discouraged. Angry. Bitter. He gives a speech in 1875. Now, this is after the panic of 1873 has hit. The depression has hit. The democrats have taken back control of congress, by 1874 the Republican Party is greatly changing. Hes deeply worried. He gave a 4th of july speech in 1875. Its a fascinating speech. In it he says war brought peace and liberty. War brought rights and freedom to my people. But what will peace among the whites bring . And he spins out this metaphor of peace among the whites. By which he meant, what if reconstruction ends with some kind of white supremacist reconciliation of the country . Which is, by and large, what happened. Its one of those douglass has many of these moments, these prescient metaphors or ways of saying whats happening to the country. He was deeply disappointed by the 1876 affair except compromise except hayes did become president and give him his First Federal appointment as the marshal of the district of columbia. Whats fascinating about douglass in these years among other things is that hes gone from being a complete political outsider, a radical outsider, to being a Political Insider in the Republican Party and he will be a kind of insider the rest of his life. And he pays a certain price for that. But anyway. Yeah. Hes deeply involved with the reconstruction. But he has no real power except language. And the power of words. Thats his problem. Edna hes an example of how africanamericans are defining freedom. Its not just release from the slavery. But its about full equality as well. And so you have men and women like douglass pushing, pressing for that even during the war. Theyre talking about equality. Theyre talking about full citizenship. And so when they dont get it, they are terribly upset about it. Especially since 200,000 black men served the union army during the war and they thought what they were fighting for was not just the freedom of enslaved people but for equality as well. And they didnt receive it or may have received it for a short period of time and then lost it. Harold isnt there an irony that there is a potential for africanamericans to be elected in the south when some white voting is restricted and africanamericans can register to vote but in new york where i presume douglass still holds residence, there is no chance of his ever standing for office. Eric blacks in the north are about 1 of the population at that time. This is way before the great migration and that sort of thing although there were certain wards where there were concentrations. You did get a few blacks elected to office in the north. Mostly in massachusetts which was the most liberal of these states. But youre right. In fact, reconstruction is one of the ive been wanting to have a graduate student, since im retiring from teaching, why dont you do this, or you, have a graduate student do a study of what you might call black carpet baggers in reconstruction. Africanamericans who move to the south, putting aside the, you know, what the term carpet bagger came to mean. You know, this is one of those moments that were more opportunity for black people in the south than in the north and a bunch of the blacks who did get elected to office in the south were northerners who had come down to work at the freed mens bureau or with the churches or as teachers or just to get into office. So its that migration, not a lot of people but a lot of them did get into political power so its interesting. There wasnt a heck of a lot of opportunity obviously for ambitious people, ambitious in politics, in the northern states at this point. David douglass gets almost every year elected as a delegate to the Republican National convention. He would often be a speaker at it. In fact a typical scene at a Republican Convention in reconstruction for the rest of douglasss life, douglass would walk in the room, the big white mane of hair so visible, and the crowd would start shouting, douglass, douglass, douglass. But he never ran for any office. There were people urging him in reconstruction to move to mississippi and run for the senate. Douglass attitude about that was, hmmm. Not very safe. Professor Greene Medford hes telling other people to stay put. David that is true. Very controversial. He urged people not to go west. Anyway. Another story. But he did many, many speaking tours especially after reconstruction. More than we ever knew before. Harold we have some interesting audience questions. I think ill do a few of them now and hope for more. The first one is directed to you, david. David oh, dear. Harold it says professor blight said there was a lack of public will to fulfill reconstruction. And our questioner would like you to elaborate on that a little bit. How do you measure or define public will . David how do i know what the public will was . Good question. What i meant, simply, is there was a political consensus during the first years of reconstruction forged in part by the opposition of Andrew Johnson. Forged in part by the fact that youve got the most exconfederates out of power and not even voting in the south. Such that you could get the reconstruction acts and the first Civil Rights Act and the 14th amendment and 15th amendment passed. Thats reconstruction and how the Southern States were actually readmitted to the union. But when the 11 Confederate States are all back in the union, basically by 1870 to 1874, 1870 to 1872, a lot of northerners said, thats it. What more than can we do . Thus far, no farther. Theyve given black men the right to vote. There is a Civil Rights Act passed. Theyre back into the union. Thats it. Thats it. Let us have done with reconstruction, which was the famous headline in the nation or whatever magazine it was in 1870. And after that, the 1870s is a very different time. Its a huge economic depression that hits in 1873. Huge numbers of unemployment. Especially in the north. The democrats revive as a party. Did they ever. And they take back control of congress by 1874. The Republican Party is becoming more and more only the house. Mr. Blight thats true. They didnt take the senate yet. That comes much later. Only the house. Even that was astonishing. Professor foner thats important, yes. Mr. Blight there were headlines in 1874. The Republican Party is wrecked or headlines like that. So by the 1870s, theres a lot of other crises on the minds of americans and the Republican Party is now talking about big business and tariffs and unemployment and not the southern problem. O the lack of will becomes a transfer of interest. A transfer of attention from the south and reconstruction and the race problem as its always called on to other kinds of matters. And in the end its a failure of will to hold the great achievements of reconstruction by the mid and late 1870s. Professor foner there is also, what you call almost in a modern sense a Propaganda Machine coming from the south to the north. After 1868, which is a violent and deeply racist election, i mean, you know, the you think political discourse is at a low level today. Look at the election of 1868 which was completely racist. The democratic camp. After that the democrats pulled back from that. They began a new campaign. No, we accept now. Yeah. Theyve got the vote. Fine. But reconstruction is corrupt. Its bad government. They try to say, this is just bad government in the south and that begins, that idea begins to take hold in the north. It is the beginning of the dunning school. Later the professors said footnotes to the southern Propaganda Machine and even northerners, you know, as you said the nation or new york tribune or strong antislavery publications by the mid 1870s are saying, this is really a mistake. They are the natural leaders of society and should be in charge and the bottom rail cant be put on top right away. Theyre saying they respect the rights of black people now so lets be finished with this econstruction. I think it is fair to say public sentiment in the north really shifts away from reconstruction during the course of the 19 1870s. Not all at one moment but little y little it happens. Mr. Holzer you mentioned the panic of 1873. The socalled infrastructure which creates employment is now no longer a priority or possibility. When there is a jobs panic the people at the lowest end of the economic ladder get dumped. It is almost a nonracial truth in this country. So now that youve attempted to explain your earlier comment and did a very good job, we dont often like to go into the 20th century though i did start with the 21st century. But this is an interesting question. Is there any evidence you know of in the reconstruction of germany and japan after world war ii america learned something from the reconstruction efforts f 18651876 . No. The answer is no. Reconstruction at that point as we heard was considered the lowest point in america. Nobody was going to go back and say hey lets look at what they did in reconstruction. Reconstruction was considered the lowest point in the whole saga of American History. Professor foner more interesting might be the fact that when the United States occupied haiti, in 19161936, 20 ears of military occupation of haiti, they did look back at reconstruction. But what was the lesson they drew from reconstruction . It was a big mistake. It proved that black people dont know how to govern themselves. And, therefore, were not going to let the haitans govern themselves. Reconstruction proved they cant do that. The socalled lesson of reconstruction was again just the failure of interracial democracy so to speak. Mr. Blight there may be something to talk about though with occupation. Military occupation. I mean, part of this is of necessity. You think with the occupation of germany, the occupation of japan, and the marshall plan, although i dont know the inside history of the marshall plan. But the people who conceived the marshall plan, were they reading about reconstruction . If they were, what were they reading . Claude bowers. Mr. Blight im sure they were. We werent at that seminar. Major military occupations have occurred primarily in modern history of sheer necessity. There used to be conferences about this. Comparing reconstruction with the occupation of germany. It would always kind of fizzle out. Professor foner then came back with iraq and analysis of that though i dont think general petraeus was reading about reconstruction that much. Mr. Blight no. Mr. Holzer ready for another question . Mr. Blight sure. Get us back in the 19th century. Mr. Holzer hell start with edna because of your recent book on lincoln and emancipation. Obviously eric has covered this as well. From a High School Teacher in our audience. It wasnt until i saw the film lincoln that i realized how far Abraham Lincoln strayed from his save the union philosophy in pushing for the 13th amendment. Is that film portrayal accurate . Professor Greene Medford how far he strayed . Mr. Holzer i think progressed is probably what the questioner means or maybe strayed. I dont know. Professor Greene Medford yeah, i certainly i would agree that he put his full weight behind passage of the amendment by 1865 or at least after the summer of 1864. But it doesnt start with him. And i think that thats where it goes wrong. This is an abolitionist effort in the senate and its passing the senate before its passed in the house of representatives. What you saw in the movie was the second time its going through the house of representatives. Initially lincoln had not supported the constitutional amendment because he believed this was something for the states to do. That this these were laws that had been enacted by the states and this is where it should rest even though he had issued the emancipation proclamation. We know that was the military measure. Ow, he was concerned about whether or not what was going to happen to those people who ad been freed by the proclamation because there was a possibility that they could be returned to slavery. And at least, though, there was nothing that would present or prevent the south from reinstituting slavery again once the war was over. Unless there was a constitutional amendment. But initially he didnt think that was a good idea for there to be that National Effort that it should be stayed. Mr. Holzer im going to jump in with one question that says due four people disagree about anything . [laughter] mr. Holzer around the edges maybe. Professor foner good point. We disagree about the movie. Mr. Holzer let me jump in with one comment about lincoln. There is a wonderful story that ccurs in june, 1864. When lincoln gets a visit from someone who was at the republican nominating convention. Lifpblg supported a plank for the union Party Platform as the party was renamed for that lection. A plank supporting what they called a constitutional amendment. Nobody called it the 13th. A constitutional amendment to end slavery everywhere. The person came back and said, well, when the advocate presented the plank, he got enormous cheers. And lincoln stiffened up and said well i hope he mentioned it was my idea. So, you know, he certainly regarded himself as early as june, 1864, as a father of the 13th amendment. Right. But as you well know it was introduced in congress in december, 1863 by henry wilson. Mr. Holzer he was denying paternity. Professor foner he was not he jumped on board and did a lot to get it passed but it wasnt his idea. At this point the movie which is truncated gives you the impression this was lincolns idea the 13th amendment. Actually it was the Womens National loyal league, give them credit, the stantons and anthonys who launched a Gigantic Campaign in the beginning of 1864 to press for this amendment. It is not that lincoln was against it but his priority was state by state emancipation at that moment. You know, to get a constitutional amendment passed s not so simple. Mr. Holzer it hadnt happened for decades. Professor foner right. 3 4 of the states and lincoln insisted the Southern States had to be counted. It was a lot easier to get individual states to abolish slavery. That is a whole other story. My view of the movie is just this. If watching the movie leads a person to read a book about lincoln, harold or ednas book or david or me, especially my book. [laughter] professor foner then it will have done something useful. [laughter] apart from the movie i ont know if this makes us disagree but it is often lost just what a crisis the 1964 election was. The Republican Party is pummeled for its support of the 13th amendment and they begin to walk it back. One all that came out and said, no, we may not enforce this anyway. I always tell my students, the 1964 election was the most racist white supremacist election in American History until the next one. They painted we can ask you name it. New york was the incubator for some of the most vicious, racist attacks. Miscegenation. They would not let Frederick Douglass go out on the stump because they are trying to disassociate themselves from the 13th amendment, which they are responsible for. And yet lincoln does get reelected and it is a huge if he does not and he does not back off the 13th amendment. They tell him to, and he does not. The head of the Republican National committee says, hey, lincoln, if you stick with emancipation, you are going to lose the election. Greenlee said it as well. Mr. Blight we will let them back in with slavery. Incoln seems to think about it but says no, absolutely not. In august, he thought he would lose. That is an interesting confluence of things. Reeley comes back from Niagara Falls and says, you have to give up on emancipation. Lincoln writes the blind memorandum and asks his cabinet to sign a pledge to collaborate with the inevitably incoming administration. And he sees Frederick Douglass at that same moment to talk about spreading the word, invites douglass to spread the word about emancipation while the time is right, and then comes raymond, the chairman of his own party and editor of the New York Times and says, i think greeley may be right, you have to step back. That is when he wavers. The confluence of all of those things. He writes that strange letter to raymond almost as a pass to richmond. If you can find anyone who could produce Jefferson Davis to talk about ending the war was slavery intact, show me that man. And i will talk to him. But then he drops it in a couple of days. That was the one moment in lincolns presidency, august 31, when he wavers. Then on september 1, atlanta, so we dont have to worry about it anymore. You got lucky there. Mr. Holzer mcclellan is nominated the day after, he was not as lucky. In our increasingly racialized society, do historians and students of color view reconstruction differently . Differently from what . From each other or from you guys. Do you encounter different perspectives or are all our students reading foner, blight, and medford . You probably have a lot more students of color than i do, but i find it reflecting the world that we live in today, certain cynicism. The idea that we have been putting forward, that reconstruction was a noble attempt which did not succeed, i think there is more of a sense among students that racism is permanent and therefore, nothing really happened and it is blah blah blah. There is a much more cynical view of all efforts to change race in this country today. Not simply among black students, among students in general you are tuned to this kind of issue. Professor Greene Medford they see it as a simple answer, that racism is at the center of anything, so why would you expect anything to be different during reconstruction . When i found in my students is that they are very much interested in the accomplishments of reconstruction what are africanamericans able to do despite all the challenges . Yes, the economic dependency is not realized during this period, but they are forming churches, families and marriages are being ecognized. They are establishing these societies, benevolence societies that they are becoming a part of. Communities are being built, schools. There are some very positive things going on during reconstruction. My students are tired of hearing the negative. I remember years ago, being on my typical this happened, this happened, and it was all negative. One young woman said, stop. If it is that bad, why do i need to be sitting here . I thought, she is right, i got to Start Talking about the positive things that occurred, and there were lots of positive things. You were committing microaggression. Professor Greene Medford indeed. I dont want to keep agreeing, but there is tremendous cynicism among young people right now, students, and not without reason. What i also found over recent years is there is tremendous interest in the Civil Rights Era because it has this aura of triumph and a good ending, happy ending. And then the obama presidency, for gods sake. There was just a deep fascination with that and less with the 19th century, less with slavery. However, we have done something to make slavery and its aftermath interesting again. I dont know that we have done it, i guess the society has done it, in some ways. The problem is always getting the attention back onto subjects that dont have always progressive the Civil Rights Movement did not exactly have the 1970s is not unlike the 1870s, if you want to get instrumental about analogies. There is a loss of will and a retreat from the Civil Rights Movement. In the reagan era, it got to be a speedy retreat. Who knows what retreat may happen now . Professor Greene Medford so did the second reconstruction fail . Mr. Blight no, not yet. But it still could. Here is a question on an issue we may have overlooked. As we know, lincoln replaced hief Justice Roger tawney in 1864, who finally died, although most people predicted he would never die. The author of the dred scott decision. Replaced him with someone he was not terribly fond of, simon chase, someone he knew would advocate for federal oversight of black rights, basically. We have not really addressed the role of the Supreme Court and the reconstruction era, so that is the question at hand. Remember that because of the dred scott decision, the reputation of the Supreme Court as long as tony was chief justice had fallen to its lowest point in history among northerners, republicans. During the secession crisis, nobody said, lets see if the Supreme Court can handle this. Nobody thought they should have anything to do with it. Incoln defied orders, habeas corpus. He defied an order from tawney toward the beginning of the war. Today, president really could not do that, but lincoln did it. What happens the Supreme Court is part of this retreat from reconstruction that we talked about in 1870s. I dont want to just go through slaughterhouse, cruickshank, reese. You can give the litany of cases in which little by letter, the Supreme Court whittles away at the civil rights legislation, enforcement legislation, the 14th amendment. Should we blame these nine guys . Should we say, they are just reflecting public sentiment . But the Supreme Court also creates public sentiment through its decisions. But i think the whole history of the Supreme Court between 1873, slaughterhouse, and 1900 or so, williams v. Mississippi, is one long retreat. And a very disreputable part of the history of jurisprudence in the United States, of really undermining enforcement of the measures that have been passed during reconstruction. The thing that people dont quite realize so much is a lot of that stuff is still good law. Those decisions have not been overturned. The court has moved around them in upholding more recent civil rights legislation, but a lot of those things are still on the books. Since the Supreme Court goes by president precedent and established jurisprudence, they are still influencing. Cruickshanks was cited the civil rights cases, one of the worst decisions in the era, was cited as a president by the Supreme Court in the 21st century. It is still out there doing mischief. Mr. Blight at the core of this, which is sometimes hard to explain today, was this by the time you get to the famous u. S. V. Stanley, civil rights cases that all but obliterated equal protection under the 14th amendment, all of those justices had been appointed by lincoln or grant. They were all republican. They had retreated into a kind of judicial conservatism in which they had been trained and grown up, and they were very political. Some of these guys ran for president while on the Supreme Court. Or try to. They kept trying. We dont at least have that today, so far as we know. But what they retreated into was states rights doctrine, that all of this experiment on the use of federal power to protect the rights of people, could could a murder case, an obvious murder case in louisiana, be appealed n federal court . Supreme court said, no, that can only be adjudicated at the state level. You know who recently called for cruickshank to be directly overturned . Clarence thomas, in an opinion he wrote. He knows africanAmerican History. I dont agree with his interpretation, but he studies it more than other people on the court. But david is right. These decisions sort of tried to reinstate the old federal system from before the war in a very disastrous way. Mr. Blight the constitutional conservatism of the first half f the 19th entry that even the judges who get on the court in the wake of a revolution by the civil war and reconstruction could not rid themselves of. That is what gets us from slaughterhouse to the one guy who resisted, harland, had, from a slaveowning family in kentucky. He kept saying, we are not even talking about the 14th amendment, we are talking about the 13th, what it is to be a free person in america. If your rights can be taken away by individual violence, state action, if you can be degraded in public by being forced into some kind of separate car or refused entry to a business, you are not a free citizen anymore. That is what we should be talking about. We are talking about the end of slavery here. The rest of the court did not buy that at all. There is a great letter from Frederick Douglass the heartland right after the civil rights letter from Frederick Douglass to harland right after the civil rights cases. He was the lone dissenter. He said, you may feel lonely on the court, but you are not lonely among my people. They actually became friendly, quite friendly. Harland attended douglasss funeral. Mr. Holzer here is a question that may reflect something we did not get into enough detail. We have two questions about jim crow. One is how the term originated, what it refers to, and second was the manifestation second, was it a manifestation of reconstruction or a reaction to the second reconstruction . We have to position it in the iconography of the phrase and where it exists in the history of reconstruction. Professor Greene Medford supposedly and this is up for debate it comes from old minstrel shows. There was a song about jumping jim crow. But what it signifies is segregation, racial segregation. We know that whether the laws are in place or not, certainly this is happening in custom. Interestingly enough, there was no need for that during slavery because you had, for instance, talking about public accommodations, you had enslaved people accompanying their owners in public accommodations all the time during slavery, because one knows ones place when one is enslaved. Jim crow, segregation from the perspective of the southern white person, or the northern white person, because there is segregation in the north as well in certain instances the rgument is, it is necessary to remind people what their status is in society. And of course, it just gets worse from reconstruction on. And it goes from being a state issue to a National Issue when it is sanctioned by the Supreme Court in plessy v. Ferguson, not overturned until the brown ecision. Those laws are out there shaping the experiences of African Americans for a number of decades. Professor foner it is crucial to understand, too, that jim crow laws started in 1890, the late 19th century. The first disenchant server the first disenfranchisement act is in the the historic argument on which those are built is the version of reconstruction as a chaotic time. Black people got too many rights to fast, society was out of control. And hence in the south that the Democratic Party would portray jim crow legislation as reform, a new social control. It was progressive, even. A way of preventing violence. Southern progressives like the people around Woodrow Wilson were diehard segregationists, but they saw it as a reform. We need to know that. That was their vision of reform because it would reestablish a social order. Sorry, that is what they believed. Professor Greene Medford reform from their perspective. No africanamerican would agree. Mr. Blight wilson did not invite too many africanamericans to test it. Or to the white house as theater roosevelt had. Mr. Holzer here is sort of a daring question but we might as well and with something provocative. How much is modernday felony disenfranchisement legacy of the post reconstruction era . Professor foner felon disenfranchisement has a long history. There were some states that had that before the civil war, but before the civil war, there were not a lot of felons. N the south, slaves were not thrown in jail. That would be beside the point. Hey are supposed to be laboring. There was virtually no prison system at all. There was very little prison system anywhere before the civil war. What happens after reconstruction in the south particularly is that many, many new crimes are redefined as felonies minor theft, stealing a chicken, is now a felony. These are directed mostly against blacks. The judicial system is worked warped so that white people are not prosecuted for these things and blacks are. It is a way of taking away the right to vote. Under the 15th amendment, you could not pass a law saying black people cant vote. That would be a direct violation. There were all these other ways felon disenfranchisement was one of them, literacy tests, pull tests, all of them extensively nonracial but really directed toward limiting the power of africanamericans. The prison system that we live with today is a relatively modern thing. 1960, there were not that many people in federal prisons. It burgeoned starting with the Johnson Administration and 1970s, 1980s, and the war on drugs. Today, there are millions of people who have lost the right to vote because of these laws saying, if you are convicted of a felony, you can never vote. It is not just while you are in jail, but even if you have served your time, you have lost the right to vote. Not in every state, but many. It does have roots in the jim crow era, although it has burgeoned in or mostly the last 30 to 40 years. Mr. Blight you called that a daring question, so what the heck . If you want to understand the current state of the last 10 years or so of the passage of all kinds of voter id, Voter Suppression measures by 30some odd states controlled by the Republican Party, the best template you have is to go back to this era we are discussing, the kinds of subtleties, ways around the idea that what you were doing was disenfranchising black voters. That is exactly what voter id and Voter Suppression was, happening in this country for the past decade. I dont know whether these people read about reconstruction, but that is their model. They are doing it better even than the late 19th century. Professor foner one difference back in the late 19 century, people were forthright about what they were doing. Mr. Blight more so. Professor foner in the Mississippi Constitutional Convention of 1890, they said, hey, we are looking for ways to get the right to vote away from black people, and here is what we are doing. It was upfront. Today it is more through circumlocution. When it got to the Supreme Court, williams v. Mississippi and there were no blacks voting anymore, Supreme Court said, these laws say nothing about race. We cant go into the minds of people who wrote the law and figure out the motive, even though the motive was right out there. Supreme court said, as long as it does not mention race, not a problem with the 15th amendment. Mr. Blight i have always said sorry, daring, right . We will know we have had some kind of turn in our political culture when one republican will stand up and admit what they are doing. [applause] professor Greene Medford the interesting thing is mr. Blight about voting. [laughter] professor Greene Medford the interesting thing is that there has been a great deal of conversation in the last couple of weeks about the millions of people who voted illegally, and the reality is there were a significant number of people apparently who were denied the opportunity to vote. Millions. Professor Greene Medford who were illegally registered, with the same kinds of tactics used during the late 19th century. That is something we all should be very concerned about. Mr. Blight mr. Holzer let me see if i can squeeze one more question in. I would end on that. Mr. Holzer this is also provocative. There are two questions relating to women. One suggests that we have not spoken enough aside from the feminist founding mothers, whose adjusted the 13th amendment, in advancing the ideals of positive reconstruction. And also issues of gender and sexuality and how they relate to the push for racial equality then and now, if at all. What about the women in the movement then . Professor Greene Medford women have always been such an important part of the rights of all people. We talk about the male abolitionist when there were so many women who were by their side and sometimes ahead of them in many instances. The same thing is true during reconstruction as well. There have been some wonderful studies that have been done ecently on exactly how women are being impacted by reconstruction and how they are in turn impacting reconstruction, so i would really suggest strongly that you take a look at some of those recent studies. As she says, add to your reading list books by stephanie camp, sarah edwards, stephanie mccurry. We can tell you more about this later. These are books that have shown that a lot of the reaction beginning in the confederacy but certainly in southern laws passed during reconstruction and beyond, where ways of controlling gender, ways of controlling the lives of women, keeping women domestic, keeping women at home, on the plantation, on the farm, and so on. There was a certain domestication to law during reconstruction and beyond. As edna says, there is a lot of good work out there that shows that. On the level of rights, Voting Rights, it is a huge battle. Of course, the struggle for womens suffrage did not succeed until the early 20th century. It is also an interesting case of one example of where the right to vote succeeded first at the state level. Sometimes there are things that happen because of states ights. T depends on which side of the battle you are on. Certain states passed womens suffrage before the federal amendment. Including new york state. Professor foner as david mentioned, this was a period of a bitter dispute between people who were allies before the leaders of the Womens Suffrage Movement and the male abolitionists particularly over whether black male suffrage should go forward or universal suffrage. The Womens Movement itself splits. There were some who say no, we have to get the right to vote for black men, that is the crucial now. Others say if women are left out now, you are rewriting the constitution. Stanton said it would take 50 years, which is what it took. Mr. Blight she said some ugly stuff. Professor foner she turned to racist things, you cannot enfranchise sambo while the daughters of Abigail Adams do not have the right to vote. The battle over rights is central to reconstruction. One of the rights of citizens what are the rights of citizens, who should enjoy them, who should define them. To go back to the first point harold made, this era is relevant to the moment today. It is not dead history. The issues of reconstruction are issues on the front pages of our newspapers right now citizenship, rights, federal and state power, terrorism. Mr. Blight refugees. Professor foner all sorts of things. People need to know more about reconstruction. Mr. Blight the word refugee is in the Freedmens Bureau name. Freedmens bureau of refugees. Mr. Blight speaking mr. Holzer speaking of ending where we began, i feel obliged morally, politically, socially, to give the last word to Hillary Clinton because i began by quoting her gaffe. Is she running again . Mr. Holzer she ran from her first statement with her second statement. She wanted to expound expand and expound on this issue after her initial statement. This is what she said. We might have gone to a better place under lincolns leadership. What we needed after the civil war was equality, justice, and reconciliation. Instead, we saw the federal government abandon reconstruction before real change took hold. Too many injustices remain today. Attempts to we are continuing a long struggle that still has to be fought and won in our own generation. I think we can all agree on that and we thank you all for participating. [applause] we thank you so much. Is there more to talk about . I think we can do this again next year, hows that . Thank you all for coming. [applause] announcer you are watching American History tv, 48 hours of programming every weekend on cspan3. Follow us on twitter cspanhistory to keep up with the latest news. Announcer cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.