Toward the end. If you like other programs, please go to our website, now enjoy books. Good afternoon and welcome to the inaugural edition of this institute of American History program. Brings you some of americas greatest historians what they discuss their most recent books. Today we are joined by eric as he discusses his book. Before i formally introduce them, i want to go over a couple of housekeeping roles. First, today is mothers day. I want to wish you a very happy mothers day the most important people in history past and present, our moms. A very happy mothers day to all moms watching. We are going to go through some of the tech issues of the tech aspects for you viewers author, and introduction of myself and the rest of the team and then we will introduce professor himself. For those of you who are new to the institute for American History, Nonprofit Organization specializing History Education and serving the general public, Educational Resources and programs in the Hamilton Education program. We provide access to a range of unique primary resources many are from the 70000 election of the institute collection. I will be your moderator today. Im part of the Hamilton Education program. One of the coordinators im joined by Allison Kraft and marissa who will be helping with the q a and any tech issues you might have. For security reasons, your microphone is muted in your camera is automatically off. The chat is disabled. Lots of you are going to have a lot of Great Questions but because of the fact that we will have over 1000 participants in this program, we cant do a live q a. If you look at the bottom of your screen, theres going to be a q and a button for you to submit your questions and then we will pass them along to professor foner at the end. All of you will have fantastic questions but unfortunately, will not be able to do a live q a session because there are going to be over 1000 participants in the program. So if you do have a question, please submit it to the q a section. You can find out at the bottom of your screen. Todays speaker is professor eric foner. His book, Abraham Lincoln and american slavery won the pulitzer prize. Hes narrative of history at columbia university. Today he will discuss his book, the second founding, civil war and reconstruction remade the constitution. Here is professor foner. And introduction of the book, its interesting. Split up rights in four different ways. Natural rights, civil rights, Political Rights and social rights and how they were all kind of combined in different ways to give different meanings of citizenship. Can you expand on that . One of the things to understand about reconstruction and why its a pivotal. America, these concepts in the wake of the civil war and abolitionist slavery, all upanddown society. Im not a lawyer, im not a legal scholar and in a way, that helps shape the way i look at this history. Im interested in what everybody was thinking, not just congressional debate. Although those are very important. Reconstruction was a period when this fundamental issues of democracy, equality, citizensh citizenship, they were debated upanddown society, in the classrooms and course houses and parlors. In peoples homes they were debating this. Before if you are saying there were different kinds, natural rights, those are what everybody should enjoy because they do. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Civil rights, social rights you need basically to just compete in society, the right to own property and go to court and things like that. Things are Political Rights. You can be a citizen and not have Political Rights. Women could not vote anywhere but they were so citizens. They were regulated by the society if not everybody had them. And there was a vague idea called social rights which didnt have much of a definition but you know who you associate with, who you bring into your home and things like that. There were clear differentiations of laws, but all that changed in reconstruction. These public debates are what we call popular constitutionalism, they come to be merged as the rights of citizens, of america. The former slaves part of this debate, what they would say, they said all these rights, we demand all fees rights the same as white people. No longer should blacks be restricted from voting they were in almost every state. Some didnt even give them the basic civil rights. Illinois, lincoln made against the law for a black person to even enter the state. Free black people could not legally the state of illinois, so there civil rights were restrictive. But now one of the key stories is how this concept of different rights get merged into a new idea of rights of americans, all people are to enjoy. That is part of the impulse that leads to the rewriting of the constitution. Could you go through each of these three amendments . Talk a little about them, how they were intended to be at the time of the report in the constitution and also how theyve been reinterpreted and used through American History through the present day. Thats a big question but thats really what my book is about. When you say what they were intended to do, thats a legitimate historical question. Im trying to figure out what they have in mind, quickly were trying to accomplish, how did they think it would change things . But right you get into legal, lets go back to the original intent of the founders and theres no important document ultimately one original intent. These amendments were compromises, they have all sorts of imports into them. There were changes in wording all way through crude theres a lot of intent into different possibilities and understanding the meaning of these amendments but so what are they . The 13th amendment enacted in congress in early 1865 and ratified by the end, abolished slavery throughout the entire country. In the process of doing that, the word slavery into the constitution for the first time. The original used the circumlocutions, slavery was in the, protected by doctor work. But slavery is named in the constitution. Hadnt lincoln freed all of the slaves . Well, no actually. Proclamation of 1863 did free little over 3 million slaves but there was still another threequarter vermilion to whom it did not apply. Slaves in the border states, missouri, kentucky, maryland who were in the union. They have not succeeded, well over halfmillion slaves but they were still in the union and the military major against the confederacy did not apply from moreover, what you really need to get rid of slavery is to abolish all state laws, slavery was created by state laws. There were still on the books in the emancipation proclamation was enacted. Bringing people is not quite the same thing as abolishing slave slavery. Thirteenth amendment eradicated throughout the entire country it has a second section which is extremely important which basically says congress will have the power to enforce this amendment with appropriate legislation. What does it mean to enforce the 13th amendment . Obviously nobody could be bought and sold anymore but slavery includes all sorts of things. Denial of education, the right of marriage, all sorts of rights are taken away when you are a slave. As abolishing slavery restrict the rights to everybody . What about racism that is essential to slavery in this country . As abolishing slavery also abolish racism and get the federal government the power to attack racism is a relic or residue of slavery . Nobody quite knew but the simple act of abolishing slavery becomes much more complicated the more you think about it and very soon after ratification, Congress Passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Based on the 13th amendment to guarantee to africanamericans the basic civil rights, short of voting for all other civil rights, to go to court, sue, have property, have the law apply equally to you as others. Thats part of the abolitionist slavery. Defining what it is to be a free person in america. Now you have for killing three people were slaves are just a few physical. Then 1866, Congress Goes further to approve the 14th amendment. The most important amendment in our history after the bill of rights, the longest amendment during all sorts of things together in terms of settling the uses of the civil war. Things about the confederate debt, something southerners will never get compensation monetarily for the slaves that had been freed but the court is the first section which begins by declaring anybody born in the u. S. , a citizen. You might say whats the big deal . Well, before the civil war, that was not the case. You could be born in the u. S. As a freak person not be a citizen. Thats what the Supreme Court said, only white people can be citizens. No black person can be a citizen of the u. S. Or here or anywhere else. There were closely tied before the civil war because of slavery fundamentally and how they influence the whole structure of our society and politics knocked abolished. This is what we call birthright citizenship which is still controversial because there is debate about well, does it apply to the children of undocumented immigrants . Where on mothers day today, a woman whos here illegally, undocumented gives birth to a child in the u. S. , whats the status of the child . The child is obviously a citizen. Anybody born in the u. S. What does it matter what your parents are. They could be bank robbers, it doesnt affect the status of the child as a citizen. The only exception is native americans. At that time, they were considers problems of their sovereignties, not the u. S. Not until 1924th at all native americans become citizens of the u. S. The vast majority, not for the first time, the uniform definition of citizenship for me amendment goes on to say no states can deny to any one of these citizens the privileges or immunities of citizens. Here get back to the question often type. Whats the original intent of saying that the privileges or immunities of citizens . Is a tremendous array of opinions about that. Some thought they didnt amount to very much, most of your rights came from the states, not the federal government. Being a citizen student amount to anything. Other said no, privileges and immunity so it meets all sorts of things. The right to education for example. All sorts of rights. Over the course of cash just recently, there was a Federal District court case coming out of michigan where they ruled literacy is a fundamental part of being a free american. Piercing the schools of detroit, they are so terrible people are being denied a basic right of american citizenship, thats the right to be educated. That is a 14th amendment decision. Its overseeing the state still trying to make sure they guarantee a full range of rights and privileges for all americans. So the Fourth Amendment is being debated right now, as we sit here at many levels of our judicial system. Then the amendment goes on to say no state can derive any person of equal protection of the law. It puts the word equal into the constitution for the first time in any meaningful way. The original constitution mentioned what happens if two candidates get an equal number of electoral votes but thats a different question. Now all persons in the u. S. Enjoy legal equality. You might say whats the big deal . But that wasnt true before the civil war work immediately, black loss, offset applied only to africanamericans, punish them in ways that people are not punished. Deprive them of things which white people objected to. Fourteenth amendment said you could no longer do that at the state level. Equal protection of the law. Finally, the 15th the member goes even further and seeks to guarantee the right to vote to all black men in the country. It says no state should deny you citizen of the right to vote because of race. But its a limited amendment because it leaves open other crimes to divide deny people write about. Sex, they were angry about this because it left him from the right to deprive women the right to vote because thats not discrimination on the basis of race. You cap property qualifications, poll tax, literally taxes, as long as they were not racially configured. Later on in the 19th century, the right to vote was taken away from africanamerican men in the south, the constitution was nullified down part of the south in the late 19th century. But not by flossing black people cant vote anymore, bylaws putting other requirements, which were supposedly nonracial but the way they were implemented was to basically eliminate the black vote. So these amendments make africanamericans equal citizens, at least in terms of the law and the constitution which is an amazing transformation, ten years after slavery was the most important Economic Institution in the united states. Now the former slaves are elevated to this condition of equality and thats one of the reasons why i say its a fundamental change in the constitution. I will stop right there and get you a long answer that was fantastic. Before we get ready to start transitioning to the q a out of the program from the final question i want to ask you, the reconstruction. From the second founding. Which is in your book, except critical in the history of our country, its in some ways, not as well known. We kind of go from the civil war and then skip over to already at the start of the 20th century in some ways. If you could talk a little bit about why you think that is and also how this reconstruction. Omaha has the historical interpretation of this changed over the decades as well . I have devoted a lot of my career to study reconstruction product i do agree its often not very well known or understood. I think theres a lot more recognition support nowadays than there was say when i was in school, and college. Reconstruction in my mind, is critical to understanding americans today. Issues of reconstruction are right on our front pages. They are pushed off for the moment because of the Public Health situation we face but was a citizen . Thats being debated every day at our border. Who are to have the right to vote . The right to vote was being suppressed in many states. People off the pony roles for trivial reasons. Reconstruction issue very much alive today. Terrorism reconstruction was a period of home from american terrorism. Im not talking about osama bin laden. Im talking ku klux klan groups like that which killed more americans than many others imagined to do. How do you deal with terrorism and combat . Thats a reconstruction question. The relationship between economic democracy and political democracy, reconstruction his work at least for men, not women, theres a level Playing Field of Political Rights and yet economically, the former slaves were tremendous disadvantage. They came out of slavery with no economic wherewithal, not given 40 acres that many thought was there right coming out of slavery. You happy vast inequality economically, coupled with a tremendous strive towards political democracy and inequality politically. Thats not unlike our situation today or weve had such an increase in inequality in the last generation or so but another thing for many, many years i dont want to go to Great Lengths but many years, i was seen as the most time in american drama, a period of corruption from this government according to the scholars of the early 20th century. Many came out of socalled dunning school. It was part of the intellectual legitimation of the solid south. Look what happened when black men were given the right to vote. Disaster of reconstruction. Our conclusion from black . The white sox is correct to take the right to vote away even though they are violating the constitution. If you give them their basic rights, you have a replay of reconstruction. Im sorry to say, defining my life to historical, it played a role in spreading racist history which help legitimate the denial to africanamericans of the basic constitutional rights. Once the Civil Rights Movement took place, it fell to the ground and set length, scholars have been rewriting reconstruction history and i think we see them today is a critical moment in the history of american democracy. The great tragedy of reconstruction was attempted but it failed. Whole bunch of books dealing with this, this particular book even though its three amendments, pull back a little is also about reconstruction. The last chapter is also relevant to the present day, its about how the Supreme Court systematically whittled away at the guaranteed rights in the constitution, how they are interpreted over the whole next generation of the 1880s and 90s and into the early 20th century. They allowed the right to vote to be stripped away, they legitimize things like racial segregation think no, thats not discriminatory. If blacks dont like it, thats their problem. Singling out a group of citizens for exclusion from Public Transportation and same nobody should complain about that. That doesnt violate equality. Many other and stripping away from the federal government the power to enforce 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Every one of the amendments had this final cross giving congress the power to enforce it and get, even time to today, not that long ago, seven or eight years ago in the Shelby County case where the Supreme Court overturned the key provisions of the Voting Rights act of 1965 again on the grounds that well, really the federal government shouldnt be bothering states about who they let vote and to they dont even though the amendments were predicated on the idea of federal enforcement of forcing the states to treat all their inhabitants equally which theyve never done before, particularly in the south. This is part of trying to build a new nation on the ashes of slavery. That was the aim but unfortunately, this long history also shows us something felt uncomfortable, rights can be gained and also taken away. Our history is not just greater and greater freedom but greater freedom and then lesser freedom. Rights can be gained or lost, struggles go on and on and reconstruction is one moment, a much bigger struggle to really make this into a democracy which it claims to be so i will stop that there. Thank you for that. Thank you so much for writing this incredibly important book. Were going to move into the q a session, i can see we have lots of questions ready to go. Allison, pacifist questions on. There were so company. They were all incredible questions. It was challenging to narrow them down to a select and fall. First is from jeffrey would like to know, is also came up a few times as well, had lincoln not been assassinated, how would it fit proceeded differently than it did . Race relations have been altered or does lincolns effort to preserve his greatness and free him from the problems that came from the failed promise of reconstruction . Im smiling because i secretly get a question along those lines it is understandable. This is what we call counterfactual history. Its not really history but historical knowledge to think about it. I dont mind speculating because nobody can prove that what i say is wrong but lincoln was succeeded in office by andrew johnson, Vice President to the president when composite assassinated. In the old view, johnson was sort of a hero. He tried to stand up the radical republicans, try to keep the south under white americans. Radicals full temp but heres a defender of the constitution. Nowadays, johnson is considered one of the worst president in American History. There are other contenders were being considered the worst president but johnson is one. He was deeply completely different from the can in every way. Deeply racist. He was stubborn, unable to listen to criticism and change his mind. He did know how to work with congress, no sense of public sentiment. Ended up getting himself impeached from first president tried before the senate. Inconceivable but that lincoln would have got himself into that kind of fix. What might have happened . The battle between johnson and congress was really drained over the Civil Rights Act of 1866 the 14th amendment of 1866. Johnson opposed them and vetoed the Civil Rights Act. He sold told the south to ignore them. When conflict certainly not have done that. These were mainstream republican measures. Every republican in Congress Virtually voted for that. When conflict have gone himself completely alienated from congress the way johnson did in 1866. Basic principles of quality preferable flaw of citizenship, theres no reason to think lincoln would have felt he had to oppose them the way johnson did. Then you go a little further and say well, what about black suffrage . Lincoln never supported black suffrage before the war. In his last speech before his assassination, he ruminated about allowing more black soldiers to vote and maybe this educated so he was moving toward maybe a little black suffrage. What he support the reconstruction measure of congress of early 1867 which said are going to have government in the south with black men voting alongside white men . Who knows . The further you go in history, the more speculation becomes. What would lincoln have done when the violence occurred in the south . I dont know. He have set troops . I dont know. I do think lincoln had the ability to try to bring the Republican Party and the whole country to get up which johnson completely lacked. Reconstruction with the support of the president and congress . Hard to say but certainly, with johnson opposing every single thing congress did, it made it much more difficult for progress to take place. Thank you. Our next question comes from while this would like to know, during the bicentennial of the constitution, theres just calling constitution a living document how did that connect does not connect with your assertion of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment the constitution do . The term from of the living constitution is sort of the antithesis of the other philosophy that i mentioned, original intent, those that we must interpret the constitution only on the basis of what the language originally meant, when it was written, 1787 but then others say these concepts are flexible. These concepts grow over time. The meaning of rights, the meaning of equality. Changes as time goes on and therefore, cant lock yourself into the moment these things were written. The 14th amendment was written intentionally in order to become a living document. It was clear they chose these brought phrases, due process, equal protection and things like that. They dont explain themselves, they need to be interpreted in this section says Congress Shall enforce this, its an ongoing process. Congress has the power to make sure these principles are actually enforced. So the most famous decision of the 20th century, brown versus board of education outline statemandated racial segregation in public schools, a living constitution decision. The justices, basically saying well, we dont even know what the people at the time thought about school segregation. There were barely any squirrels in the sock. That wasnt a big issue but we do know education plays a far bigger role today than it did 100 years ago or so. We have to deal with today. Weve got to deal with what it means to racially segregated people today, not when it met in 1866. Thats your concept of a living constitution. Certainly many of the key 14th amendment decisions of our time have been living gay marriage. The people of 18166 were not thinking about marriage. Nonetheless, the equal protection of the law to say if straight people get married, gay people have a right to get married. This is just equality before the law. They cannot stigmatize one group of people as unworthy of exercising the same rights as everybody else. The right to privacy is a 14th amendment right found and what the justice is from general interpretations of the bill of rights applying that to the states. The living constitution is the way the constitution has been interpreted over time most of the time but theres always that other socalled original view but in a society, which has changed, it is 150 years since these amendments were enacted. It would be pretty hard to interpret them simply on the basis of what was said 150 years ago. Its a different world than the one we are living in. Next question comes from sarah, would like to know, is the 14th amendment touch on the concept of one person, one vote . How does it impact whats considered person in the u. S. Constitution . Those are two Different Things but its an interesting question. Yes, one band, one vote. One person, one vote. Thats another 14th amendment decision. The 14th amendment is trying to force the states to recognize the basic rights enforced the asic rights and equality of liberty. In this generalized way, equal protection, due process, privileges or immunities. The one person, one vote was a decision about gerrymandering, the way districts are run in order to maximize the power of certain groups in a state or maximize the power of certain reaches. State legislatures were totally malfunctioned, small unpopulated counties would have the same number of legislatures as big cities that were hundreds of times more population. Its a violation of equal protection of the law, your vote should have the same whatever part of the state you live in. It shows you the 14th amendment has been used for all sorts of things. Also, the Supreme Court is on that. There is an attempt to get the court to overturn the gerrymandering of congressional districts where state, they redraw districts and one party will get five higher than what they suggest there title ii. They say we are not interested in this, its up to the states to do it and we are just going home. That question is still up in the air but as to what the constitutional defines as a person, well, the first sentence in the 14th a moment, any person born in the u. S. , this relates to the decisions relating to abortion rights, you have to be born to be a person. Theres sort of the unborn etc. But to be a person with rights, you have to be born somewhere. Its an interesting thing, 14th amendment uses both the word citizens, privileges or immunities of citizens, because not everybody but later it talks about all persons entitled to due process of law, equal protection of the law, that includes immigrants, aliens, visitors not just citizens. You have bearing great nations of equality but the whole question is not explained in the 14th amendment and its become very controversial nowadays. I think we have time for one more question. Given that we have so many educators and students joining us today, this question that i will bring as our product, what are you seeing as the most sink challenge for students of history . I know a lot of teachers of history, many seminar sponsors by haskell teachers where they spend a week with me and other scholars. Professor jones from Johns Hopkins university and others and i think the biggest challenge is there isnt enough teaching of history. We could say teaching is not so good, this is very good, it varies obviously around the country but unfortunately, over the last 20 years, theres been this tremendous effort on the sand subjects, technological subjects, subject that will promote supposedly prepare you directly for a job. History doesnt seem to qualify that way. The job of a historian is not a major job category in the u. S. Not only schools but states, my state, new york, we have cut back considerably on the amount of history thats required for people to graduate from high school and many states have done the same. Then they have to no child left behind legislation under president bush and obama, privileged in terms of educati education, mathematics and english in particular struggling schools, their funding is based on test results in those areas. Thats made history electric. These schools cant afford to spend time on history, they wont be judged and financed on the basis test scores on history but when it comes to literature and math, thats where the money is. All these things have contributed to a decline in the amount of history being offered. You can say this teacher is doing a good job, this teacher is not but the fundamental absence of enough History Education, i think is the biggest challenge to both the squirrels and also becoming informed and intelligent citizen in the country when people become adults and how to vote and think about politics. If you dont know history, will be at a great disadvantage in being a citizen democracy. I think all of us here heartedly agree with you on thought. On behalf of the institute, i want to say big thank you, its an absolute honor to talk with you this afternoon. I want to thank all of our viewers for joining us and before i let everyone go, i was her my screen one more time to let everyone see some of the resources of where you can get this. If you want to purchase in any of the other books featured on this new program, please go to bookshop. Orc shop. Please complete the survey. Would like to get your feedback. If you have any more information about the future of this program, go to the website. All these fantastic resources, please visit the website. A big thank you and thank you to everyone else out there as well hope you have a fantastic afternoon and we wish you well. Thank you, everyone. Apply. Is a look up books being published this week. Stacey abrams shares her ideas on Voter Suppression in our time is not. Superpower interrupted, bloomberg opening promised, Michael Shuman explores the chinese view of world history. Wall street journals bob davis and thing linked by examine tensions between u. S. And china. Also being published this week, and shields of the republic, council on Foreign Relations single fellow explores the u. S. Security license. Stony Brook University professor and former advisor to the Bernie Sanders campaign, stephanie offers her thoughts on the economic model called modern monetary theory. Look for these titles and bookstores this coming week and watch for many of the authors in the near future a book to be on cspan2. Tonight on book to be in prime time marie travels to the heartland harvesters from her familys farm. Also, author and historian joe weighs in on the historical legacy of the culvert 19 pandemic. Joe biden 2020 president ial Campaign Senior advisor sanders offers her thoughts on how americans can use their voices for political change. Arthur brooks provides strategies on how to bridge the political divide in america. Cnn political analyst examines challenges that americans in the rural south face. Find more information on your Program Guide or online at booktv. Org. Welcome and thanks to everybody for joining us today from around the world. Their countries and cities that i could claim right now, folks handle plan, appreciate you being here. Just so you know who i am, im not a relief picture from astros even though my hair has gone long and corona land and its going out over my ears. My name is dave and im the Sports Editor of the nation magazine before i introduced the man of the hour, a little bit of housekeeping. I want to thank the organizers and sponsors