The jealous and emancipated. John brown, Abraham Lincoln and struggle for american freedom. Purchased the book likely from a cappella books, there is a link in the chat at the right of your green go to the link provided on the website. Please submit your questions at the bottom of your screen. Use the q and a, it tends to be less credit that way. I will get to as many of them as i possibly can. Chair of history of the university of texas at boston, hes authored 30 books on u. S. History, the moment First Americans and biographies with both finalists. Thank you so much for joining us. My pleasure. Delighted to be back. Abraham lincoln and john brown, well covered by historians. What did you want to add to the understanding of these famous american martyrs writing about them together . I think teaching American History with 35, going on 40 years, some of the biggest questions of history are essentially questions to get down to almost moral questions. As a moral question at work here that goes beyond but i can summarize it in these two. Its a timeless question any republican sooner or later. What does a good person do when he or she is convinced that the government is involved in something that is wrong or even downright evil . What do you do . Different generations confronted in different ways. I grew up in the 70s and it was the vietnam war. What you do in a moral colonial for . To simply vote for somebody, do you barge, you throw cocktails . What you do . In the case of the mid 19th century, the pressing question of the day was slavery. What does a person, john brown, Abraham Lincoln, what does a person who is convinced that slavery is wrong, wrong on policy grounds and moral grounds and social grounds, what does that person do . What does the application does that person have . I chose to look at john brown because while they agree, they disagreed diametrically, john brown believed enforceable direct action. He declared war on slavery and did what he could to carry out, to launch the war. They thought the violence was counterproductive, bad policy but also would be ineffective. Abraham lincoln chose the path of moderation and path of politics. He believes the issue of slavery can be effectively addressed only through constitutional needs and he was as committed to emancipation as john brown was. But he thought brown would simply make matters worse by going into the ground and armed resistance. The only way to bring slavery to an end in a way to engage former slaves, do it through politics. Through political and constitutional needs. He has a different package, very early on, he gets radicalized in 1837 when the abolitionist was murdered by a mob and ends up in church and says he will devote his life to his and comes up with a detailed plan plan to resist in 1950. So did he begin there . We can do this in a different way . Johns views on slavery and emancipation evolved over time he was born in 1800, lincoln was being born in 1809. They were both born at a time when slavery was considered by many people in the u. S. To be something of a Necessary Evil and have necessary and evil depended on where you work. By 1800, northern states had it not because they were seized by morality but because there are economies had evolved in a way for slavery was unnecessary, if not downright counterproductive so they could focus and say we dont want anything to do with it anymore but Southern States choose the surprise of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison will all thought slavery flipped effectively out of the south the way it died out of the north. Four firmly upon the southern economy with changes in the technology of the cotton industry territory land available to slavery so john brown became increasingly discouraged on slavery. In the 1830s. When the abolitionist north, john brown was indeed manacled by an abolitionist editor who was killed by a mob. John brown thought this has gone too far. The people who believe slavery must and need to stand up. If growth Slavery Forces are willing to use violence, then the anti slavery side needs to take up arms as well and thats when he went to making war against slavery. First it was metaphorically but quickly became action. There were other things converging in the mid 19th century, the change in the economy and north and south, this also the expanded settlement of the western territories at odds with its powerful proslavery southern planters, his counselor ahead in kansas. Youre right, it becomes the closest thing to a referendum on slavery. The hope of the closing slavery, slavery is contained, if it is not allowed to be read, eventually it will die out because they understood what made slavery profitable in virginia in the east, was the fact that there was a market for slaves in the west. Take away the mark of expansion and then slavery would be uneconomic and slaveholders themselves will decide okay, this isnt worth it anymore and we are going to be done. That hope was spoiled when the west was opened to slavery. The west was not supposed to be open to slavery. There was a compromise between the northern states and seven states. It had to do with the admission of missouri. There were allowed to be a slave state but an agreement was made, part of the Louisiana Purchase. Slavery would be forever bitten from the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase including would be kansas territory but in 1854, stephen douglas, democratic senator from illinois decided to push a measure called the kansas nebraska act in this repealed that compromise and allowed missouri to be open, allow kansas territory to be open to the possibility of slavery under the principal of what was called popular sovereignty. A great name, misleading but a great name he could sell because it simply said the kansas territory is open to whoever wants to come and settle there. When there are enough settlers there to justify, then the people there will call a Constitutional Convention and if the convention says the state of kansas shall not have slavery and the state of kansas shall not have slavery. If the people safe kansas should have slavery, then there will be slavery. In a democracy, what could be better than that . What happened was, it turned out the cans nebraska act, the major invited the opposing side. Low proSlavery Forces would see who could fill up the territory state when the convention was held, their side would win. By mid 1850, 1855, 1856. By this time, the line had clearly been drawn between north and south on slavery as a moral overriding moral issue. In the north, abolitionist took the position that we have to oppose the extension of slavery. Anti slavery settlements society, free state immigrant societies formed in the north. People would give money to fund immigrants to go to kansas territories to plant the flag for opposition to slavery. The south did something comparable. The south has an advantage because kansas territory was right next to missouri and the missourians would go across the border into kansas terrorized the place. The story the settlements including the priestly settlement, of lawrence and they committed the stock of kansas, basically destroyed communitys. The idea was to make kansas unfriendly, downright hostage, dangerous for those settlers. This is where john brown comes in. The rounds of sons and a few others. Exactly. An interesting character, 20 children. By this time, five of his sons young man. Almost as committed to the antislavery causes john found himself. They decide, the sons go first and they are going to well, fear not initially going to take up arms but they will take up space in opposition slavery and they get there and ride home and say should come join us and john brown does. John brown is increasingly distressed at the failure of the antislavery movement. The Abolitionist Movement that frustrates proSlavery Forces. John brown is appalled at the fact that proSlavery Forces seem to be rolling over, physically, by violence and following the instruction, he concludes he needs to take strong action to send messages to the proslavery side so he gathered with three other men and in the dark of one night, they design upon a proslavery government. They drag five men, proslavery settlers from the bed and just outside the cabin they are living, they leave angled bodies and ride off into the night john browns points was to let the proslavery side realized if you use force in kansas, we will use more force against you. Approval time. Men dragged out of their beds, sons begging for their lives. The murders of their fathers, it is horrible. Its in places called for more. He never quite admits to the crime that he is a wanted man and he and his militia are joined at different times by reporters, pro abolitionist, it is interesting. We get a sense of the contemporary look and opinion john brown. How do they characterize him . What does it do for his reputation . Is a striking aspect and has to come to terms with. How is this guy, who before he becomes famous in kansas, was not much success at anything in life and if he had been more successful in business as a farmer, he probably wouldnt have become the figure he became. He wouldnt turn to abolitionist but he could never make a success of anything like before this. They didnt know what to make of him. He was, he had this really powerful personality. They couldnt leave him, they couldnt resist him, but neither could they buy entirely in. And they were very disturbed by what john browned had made and was making them do, but they still couldnt leave. Reporters loved john brown because, in the first place, this was a great story. And these correspondents sent by the new york newspapers and other, london news desks, came from england, various other places, this was the big story. And in the days before long before television, what they would do is they would write these very vivid stories describing the characters and recounting the events that they saw. And john brown was instinctively brilliant at dealing with the reporters because he was, to all appearances, utterly transparent, as honest as could be. In fact, he really wasnt, but he was one who understood that sincerity so important that once you learn to fake it, then youve got it made. And john brown would draw these reporters into his confidence. But they werent the only ones who were drawn into john browns confidence. There was a network of abolitionists. Abolitionist philanthropists centered in boston but spanning over upstate new york. And these were men, typically, who were eager to support the auntslavery cause antislavery cause. But they were in no position to take up arms. But they were enormously impressed by somebody who did like john brown. And so they became the Financial Support of john brown. And john brown, they nobody knew him from anybody else until the potowatomie massacre. Now, there was no direct evidence linking john brown to the crimes because the people who were killed, nobody knew who this guy was. He was somebody. But eventually evidence pointed to john brown. And so the federal authorities in kansas territory put out wanted posters for john brown. But the trouble was in those prephotography days, theres no picture on the poster. And so john brown, all he had to do was grow his hair, cut his beard, change his name, and he wandered relatively freely around the north. Now, just as there was an underground railroad for escaped and escaping slaves, there was something comparable for people like john brown, antislavery militants. So there were safe houses where he could stay on his way back east. And when he got back east to raise money for the kansas project, he made a point of not admitting or denying that he had been behind the murders on potowatomie creek. And his supporters or made a point of not asking him directly because they didnt really want to know. If they, if they knew for sure that he was this coldblooded murderer, then they would have had a hard time justifying giving him money to do more of the psalm. But if more of the same. But if he simply was this militant, this strongminded supporter of the cause, then fine, well give him his money. And its remarkable, as i say, for the historian to try to figure out what it was that john, about john brown that drew these were intelligent people. These were, you know, welltraveled people. But its almost as though he sort of spun this web that drew them all in. They were, he presented himself as the person that they could imagine themselves to be in their younger, braver days. Yeah. Theres a similar effect when hes planning after he leaves kansas, after things sort of settle down and he starts concocting this plan which has been in effect for some time to raise money and men for slave rebell onin the, going across the country. Some just dont want to know the plans, Frederick Douglass thinks its lunacy, for example. Hes noted for his volcanic moods in some of the testimonials that you write about in the book, impulsive, maybe even delusional thinking that hes saving the world and generations to come. Some of the stories have proposed hes mentally ill, and we have a question from mike lucas, was john brown a fanatic or merely9 another voice against slavery . Im interested in your thoughts on this theory that he was actually mentally ill. The title of my book is the zealot and the emancipator. The i chance pater, i had no problem coming up with that label for Abraham Lincoln. John brown, i had to think, so whats the word that i can apply . I was tempted for a brief time, just a brief time, to say the terrorist and the emancipator because he was, indeed, a terrorist. If he committed those crimes today, especially if it was for a cause that people didnt sign on to, well, the definition of terrorism is somebody who commits violent act for a political purpose, and thats exactly what john brown did. But that was, theres too much sort of contemporary overlink to terrorist. Fanatic, again, thats a strong the one. And i could have justified using that because he was a fanatic. Was john brown crazy . Was john brown insane . I would say definitely not, certainly not in the sense of losing touch with reality. So he always understood what he was doing and why he was doing it. Now, he was perhaps more convinced that he knew exactly what god wanted him to do than, lets say, more selfquestioning people do. But one of the reasons that john brown was so persuasive was that people who encountered him knew that he was on the right side of history and on the right side of this fundamental moral question. And the test really comes i dont want to anticipate too far here, but when he encountered southern ors, people who southerners, people who opposed everything that he stood for in a political way, he drew them in. He won them over. Because they thought they were dealing with someone who had the utter courage of his convictions. And thats something that is impressive to all sorts of people even if you dont believe in the conviction. But heres someone who, at the risk of his life, is following this belief in what is right to the logical outcome. Well, so you mentioned lets go back to lincoln for just a moment, because he said himself, i have no qearl with southerners. They didnt invent slavery, you know, theyre living with it. He is trying to make an appeal against expanding slavery into the New Territories thats being built in the west. You mentioned stephen douglas, of course, his rival in the senate, and i didnt know this, but from mary todd. I didnt realize they were both courting mary todd small town. Exactly. But theres a question here about lincoln and his, where he sal asks, says he loves your work, by the way, a lot of capital in railroads, a return hinged upon selling cotton to manchester, england, which outlawed slavery, so slavery had to end. Any motivation there . Any connection that you can see there. No, i dont think so, and heres why. Because even after england outlawed slavery, the textile mills in manchester had no problem buying southern cotton. And, in fact, anything emancipation or heaven forbud a war in the United States between the north and south would disrupt the supply of cotton. So lincoln came to husband conclusion that slavery his conclusion that slavery was wrong from an early age. He was born in kentucky, but the family moved across the ohio river to illinois. But lincoln and his family were opposed to slavery initially on, call it grounds of selfinterest. Because for a working man, someone who made his living by manual labor in a place like southern ohio, slavery simply meant that the wage rate would be far lower than it would be otherwise. Slavery was a threat to the selfinterest of free working men. And so, but, i mean, ironically emancipation was too because slavery depressed the price of labor, so the wages, but if all the slaves became free, then they would flood onto the market, and they would keep the wage rate low. So working minnesota in the north were kind of working men in the north were kind of conflicted. They didnt know where to land on this stuff. But lincoln had a moment relatively early in his life, he was about 18 or 19, when he confronted slavery in a way he never had before. So he grew up in the free states of indiana and illinois, and he then, he was aware of slavery because if you lived anywhere near the border with the slave region in this case, kentucky you would encounter slaves because slave holders would travel across the ohio river into illinois. Some of themed had property in both states, and they could bring their slaves over for a limited time, and the slaves would actually work. So lincoln was aware of this. But illinois didnt have any big slave markets. And as a teenager, Abraham Lincoln was hired to float a flat boat down the Mississippi River to new orleans. This is, you know, see the world, make a little money. So he went to new orleans, and for the first time he saw a slave auction. And the idea of this property and the sale of human flesh, and these slaves were being sold just like one would sell horses or cattle. And lincoln remembered that as the moment when he realized this just isnt right. And so he returned. But, now, he still had to make a living. And so he, as the questioner said, he took his lawyer, took his case, he represented railroads. He to occasionally would represent slave owners. And, again, this is what lawyers do. But he increasingly became convince ared that this had the United States on the wrong track. Now, for a lot of people there has always been a fundamental contradiction between the promise of equality e in the declamation of declaration of independence slavery in the constitution, and squaring that circle was a prompt for a whole generation project for a wholeration of americans. And lincoln put his faith in the constitution, he put his faith in the evolving sensibilities of american citizens. But he stern arely rejected sternly rejected the project of the abolition. Its important here to note the distinct between somebody whos opposed to slavery, that includes a larger people, and the abolitionists who say that slavery is so bad, that it has to be at the top of anybodys lust of priorities, and it justifies overruling anything else, including the constitution. So john brown took the position that emancipation outranks the constitution. Abraham lincoln put it just the other withdraw around. Not that he was the other way around. Not that he was any less opposed than brown to slavery, but he believed the constitution was the only guarantee of all american freedom. And his opinion was if emancipation should come but the constitution should collapse, then americans freedoms would generally be worse off. Now, lincoln was also a practicing politician, is so he had to sign on to that agenda in order to be at all plausible. Difficult to cover some of the complex, now what we would consider deeply problematic issues on race, race mixing and what to do with all those enslaved people if they were freed. All of this emerges in the debates on record. Can you give us a little sense of that . Sure. So, first of all, one of the appeals of abolitionism, one of the appeals of john brown is you dont bother with the complexitities of the issue. You dont ask yourself whats going to happen to these slaves after theyre free. Where are they going to live, how is the res of slavery going to deal with them. Thats gods problem or somebody elses problem. But for a practicing politician like lincoln, thats crucial. Especially since lincoln has committed himself to persuading enough southern slave holders that slavery is not in their interests anymore to get them to do what new york and pennsylvania had done, voluntarily end the institution of slavery. So so lincoln had to deal with the basic problems. Well, it was easy for massachusetts to end slavery because there were hardly any slaves in massachusetts. So the question is what do you do about the former slaves. Well, its not a bug issue because theres big issue because theres not many of them. But tell somebody in South Carolina that where 45 of the population consists of slaves. This, by the way, is important to note, that lincolns generation was a generation that could not take american democracy. [inaudible] it was still an experiment. And this was why lincoln was so insistent that when the 7th and 11th Southern State seceded, this was going to destroy democracy. People will demonstrate they cant govern themselves. So lincoln has to persuade them. And so and he also could not point to any successful biracial republics in the world or in world history. And so he understood there are going to be problems. This is one of the reasons that he thought and he was following the path of Thomas Jefferson on this one. Jefferson was opposed to slavery, but he also believed that once we free the slaves, we have to basically get them all to go back to africa or somewhere else because we cant leave them around, as jefferson put it, as lincoln put it. And they both said essentially the same thing on this subject, and that is white people in this country had done so many wrongs to black people, that black people will never be able to forgive them, so they cant live in peace beside each other. And furthermore, white people having denigrated black people for so long, they cant live with them either. And so they lincoln was like, okay, i dont want to give up democracy, i want to get rid of slavery, and so the only thing we can do is free the slaves and then cause them all to go back to africa or go to the west indies somewhere. But this was a nonstarter because most of them didnt want to go. They were more american than very many people who had emigrated to america long after the ancestors of the slave people had come to america. Well, we definitely want there are a number of questions here about i emancipation and the war, but first we have to, of course, talk about the raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859. So this was right at the runup to an election year, the important 1860 elections. This begins a little earlier than planned after their band were camping out and got made at a local farmhouse and i drew suspicion. You give this play by play of just an unbelievable story of, first, the fairly easy capture of the armey, but then seizing the local including the great grand nephew of George Washington of all people. [laughter] and presumably, this is to arouse the enslaved people. Washington, however, thought they were insane or joking. How did others respond . So exactly. Is so john brown leaves a farm several miles from Harpers Ferry, and he presented himself as a cattle buy your. Buyer. So he would buy cattle, fatten them up and send them north to market. He presented himself as this relatively harmless guy. And then when it turns out that he is he had led the antislavery militia in kansas territory at a battle which is sometimes called the first battle of the civil war. Because the fist time organized forces fought. Most of the fighting in kansas was quite irregular, but this is one where there are actual two militias that went at it. Anyway, so when they discover this is the guy, oh, my gosh, this is very strange. But in the case of louis washington, his home is entered in the middle of the night by these people he doesnt know, and hes told that he has to come with them. And he also has the hand over his weapons. And meanwhile, the slaves on the property are being told that they should come along too, but they should come along and join the army for their freedom. And theyre really reluck about the about this because nobody told them about this, nobody says theyve never heard of this guy thats going to be heading this army. Now, john brown just before the raid on Harpers Ferry called a meeting with fred rubbing douglas Frederick Douglass, the former slave, the very noted abolitionist. Who john brown had met Frederick Douglass some years before, and he had shared with douglas his plan for handing out weapons to the slaves in the vicinity of Harpers Ferry. There was a federal arsenal there. He took the weapons and gave them to the slaves in all the area, and the slaves used those weapons to strike for their freedom. And so if and john brown said to Frederick Douglass, if you come along, if the slaves that we appeal to see that youre part of this, then all of a sudden i have far more credibility than i would otherwise. And Frederick Douglass said, nah, i dont think so. Basically, what he said is im a writer, not a fighter. But secondly, but secondly, he knew that john browns raid was, in effect, a suicide mission. Because fred rubbing douglas had been Frederick Douglass had been a slave, and he understood the first thing the slaves would do is ask themselves, okay, what am i getting into here . And that, as slavery is, i dont want to go to immediate death. And as soon as i take up weapons, then that is a capital crime in any slave state if youre a slave, to take up weapons. And i will be murdered and i will be killed. And ill only do this if theres a reasonable chance that this will succeed, and ill wait and see if theres any reasonable chance to succeed. The other thing is that john brown discovered, to his chagrin, that Harpers Ferry is really easy to get into, but its hard to get out of. So actually getting into town, especially when nobody was expecting an attack, they come in in the middle of the night. There are a couple of sleepy guards around the armory there, and theyre able to force their way into the armory, but they are resisted by one guy first. Ironically, the first person, the First Casualty was a black man. And then some shots are fired, and the town wakes up. They go, oh, my gosh, theres this attack. And once the town wakes up and realizes theres an attack, then its curtains for john brown and the other people who were there. Because its, Harpers Ferry is, there are a couple of rivers that come together there, and then there are steep hills to climb. And its really easy to aim your weapons down on the armory, the arsenal. And so john brown and his small band some of them are killed, and the others are pinned down in this engine house, a brick building, that could resist the fire. And they hole up there for a while until robert e. Lee shows up as the head of a company of u. S. Marines. And lee doesnt mess around, and he orders the storming of the engine house, and brown is taken prisoner. Hes nearly killed. And he would have been killed if one of the soldiers actually, an officer entering the engine house, hadnt been in such a hurry to join the force going north, he reached for a saber, and instead of getting the real saber, he got a ceremonial saber. When he whacked john brown over the head, he just folded in two. It left a scalp wound that bled like crazy, but it didnt kill him. So if it had killed him, then the john brown story would have ended right there, and it would have had nothing like the effect it had neither in the north or the south. But it didnt kill john brown, and he loves to stand trial. The trial is just a pretty dramatic, almost surreal scene at points. Hes wounded, as you said, during the capture, and he attends the jury selection and the trial from a cot thats rolled in day by day. [laughter] and, you know, every now and again bolts up and says something and then comes right back down. It is almost, its almost comic in its own way. But weve got to move forward, so i want to ask what is this performance that he did at the trial, pretty dramatic, what effect did that have on Public Opinion . There are a number of different realms here. It polar used Public Opinion. Now, Public Opinion was already pretty polarized between north and south, but this pushes it beyond repair because john brown was tried, convicted, executed. On his way to the gallows, he slipped a note to his jailer in which he said that the crimes of this land shall not be purged away except by blood. And john brown was prophesying that there would be blood before there was an end to layoffly. And john to slavery. And john brown comported himself with great dignity, impressing even his captors. The governor of virginia was very impressed by john brown. And so john brown was hanged. To northerners and at that point, at that point even southerners who thought that john brown was this terrorist kind of guy, they had to sort of grant him grudging credit for comporting himself very well during the trial. But then what happened was john browns death was treated as a martyr or. Com in the martyrdom in the north. And john brown was, he was proclaimed the next jesus christ, someone who gave his life for the freedom of the slaves. And when white southern ors or saw this, they thought, oh, my gosh, what kind of a country do we live in where somebody who murdered my fellow southerners, who trued to raise our slave who tried to raise our slaves against us and in a way that might have left us all dead in our beds, when he is hailed as a hero by the north, southerners, white southerners saids this is a country that is not safe for the institution of slavery, this is a country that is not safe for our very lives. So, of course, this is what heads into the election of 1860 when lincoln does win. But he is now the president of a completely divided nation, right . And all sorts of if there are anying echoes here, some people threatened to disregard the results. There was plenty of slander that lincoln was part of the john brown network, that his running mate was part negro, quoteunquote. So he loses every single Southern State, becomes president of this divided nation that is soon at war. And all of these questions here about, are about what pushed him to the i emancipation proclamation. Joe asks which abolitionist figure influenced his decision the most to issue the emancipation proclamation . Dud it affect him at all . Of course, he was trying to distance himself from the john browns of the world. Another one here, can you comment on the abolitionist feelings on lincoln conducting a war to save the union during the first two years of the civil war and not a war to end slavery . So can you try and tie some of these together as were talking about what happened . Lincoln completely, after his election to the inauguration, doesnt say anything toward the anxieties building toward secession in this country. The question of lincolns silence has puzzlinged historians, certainly puzzled his contemporaries. Lincolns position was i will not give any compromises to the states, i have made my position clear in the campaign and my speeches before that, and if i simply repeat myself, they wont take me seriously. Now, that was sounds to me kind of like a rationalization, because anybody knows theres a fundamental difference between saying something as a candidate for office and saying something as president elect. Now youre going to be the guy. And people want to know if you still take seriously what you said before. So i i think that was a strategic mistake by lincoln. But once he became president , once he was inaugurated, he made very clear, first of all, that he would not tolerate secession. His perception, his understanding was constitutional, one that he had worn to uphold and defend, meant for every state in the union. His constitution did not allow states to secede. Secondly, he made very clear that his opposition to secession had nothing to do with slavery. For Abraham Lincoln, the war for the first two years not quite first two years, in the inauguration to the beginning of 1862 to beginning of 186 3, lincoln took the position the war was on states rights, his interpretation of states rights as not including the right to e secede. And he was asked by Horace Greeley, the antislavery editor of the new york tribune, and greeley was pushing lincoln to say, look, call this a war about slavery, and that way we can get all the abolition u. S. Es on our side. Frederick douglass was saying, come on, you might as well make it a war about slavery, but lincoln said no. First of all, because his interpretation of the constitution still held. The president of the United States nor congress had any authority to tell virginia, to tell georgia, to tell mississippi that they couldnt have slaves. If they wanted to have slaves til time forever, that was their positiontive under lincolns interpretation of the constitution. But secondly, and this is crucial to remember, not all the slave states seceded. And there were four border states, especially including missouri, kentucky and maryland. If maryland seceded and if lincoln declared this a war against slavery, then maryland a slave state would have almost no choice but to join the confederacy. And once that happened, the Union Government would have to evacuate washington, d. C. And it would be very much harder to hold the ohio river, to hold the Mississippi River. And so lincoln knew that on constitutional grounds and on strategic grounds making this a war against slavery would be counterproductive. Finally, lincoln knew that the north was hardly unified in favor of waging a war against slavery. After the shelling of fort sumter in april of 1861, lincoln issued a call for volunteers, and he said it was volunteers to save the union. If lincoln had issues a call for 75,000 volunteers to free the slaves, he wouldnt have gotten anywhere near 75,000. Opinion in the north was by no means universal behind freeing the slaves for some of the reasons i mentioned and just the fact that for most northerners, slavery wasnt that big a deal. It was a really big deal for people like john brown and people who were fulltime abolitionists, but for most people in the north, maybe they were mildly opposed, but to risk my life, to go to war for it . I dont think so. When did that shift . Because that explanation also gives cover to the jefferson daviss who say, you know, this isnt about slave true, this is about states rights. Well, so ironically, yeah, lincolns position at the first part of the war was the position that southerners would take after the war and saying this wasnt about slavery, but strikingly, at the beginning of the war in most of the ordinance of secession, its clearly identified as the proximate cause. Now, the seceding states all say that every state, including maryland and new york, have a right the to secede. You dont do this for any reason at all. No, you do it because some basic interest is in danger. And they nearly all identified slavery as that basic interest that was in danger. So anyway, lincoln initially takes the position that this isnt about slavery, this is about states rights or the lack of a states right to secede. But he is worked upon by people like Horace Greeley and Frederick Douglass. But furthermore, by his own generals who say, look, the slaves in the south are a war resource. They provide the labor that keep the Confederate Army in the field. And whatever we can do to diminish the effectiveness of that labor force, we should do. And if you promise freedom to the slaves, then it will encourage slaves to abandon the plantation, to abandon their masters and head to union lives. And maybe, maybe well use them as soldiers of our own. That seemed to be a dicier issue. There was another angle that was at play thats often overlooked, and that is the role of britain in all of this. Everybody alive in the 1860s knew the story of the american revolution, and it succeeded only with the help of a foreign power, france. The confederacy knew that its attempt at independence, of doing in 1861 what the colonies did in 1776, was going to require the help of a foreign power. Yulely, britain ideally britain which was dependent on southern cotton. And britain if it did that, it would have been a great boon to the confederate troops. But there was this moral and political and emotional opposition to slavery in britain. And the idea of recognizing a slaveholding republic, one that owed its existence to its embrace of slavery, was a really tough political sell. But as long as lincoln was saying this isnt about slavery, then theres no difference between north and south, and the british could follow their economic interests. So to prevent that happening, lincoln realized, okay, id better make this a war about slavery so the british will know if you just stay neutral, that effectively helps us, the north, and that helps the cause of antislavery. If you support the south, then in effect, youre overturning 30 years of your own policy and supporting slavery. Hmm, fascinating. Fascinating turn there. It wasnt all of the abolitionists, but actually, the support of britain. You do point out in the book, of course, the irony that lincolns political path leads to far more bloodshed than john browns radical insurgency. And that, in effect, it did more to advance john browns goal. As you just said, more than 100,000 enslaved people escaped to take up arms for the union. And im sure you are well aware there are many contemporary historians that say, you know, lincoln was not this was not about slavery for him, he was quite a racist, that this was, that he was just pushed into it, he was backed into a corner. Question here from jim, john louis gates has written that lincoln was actually a racist who became opposed to slavery as he was impressed with the courage of africanamerican troops. Others say a politician was always opposed to slavery e and waited until the political winds allowed him to free the slaves. How do you feel about that claim . I do not use the term racist in the book because what one would call a racist in 1860 is very different from what one would call a racist in 2020. It confuses the issue. I will say this, that lincoln acknowledged differences between the black race and the white race. He suspected that the differences were not innate, but were the result of the lack of opportunities of black people and if you, if youre a slave and youre not educated, how in the world are dow doing to look very smart compared to people who do have the advantage of education. But he also made very clear that he was not in favor of, for example, interracial marriage. But he also said that even if one acknowledged, even if one claimed and he wasnt claiming this, neither was he exactly denying it but even if one claimed that the white race was superior to the black race, that doesnt jump enslaving the black race. Because if you accept that principle, then the smart people of any race get to enslave the dumb people of any race. And that just doesnt cut it. And lincoln would say that just because i dont want to marry a black woman doesnt mean i want to enslave her. So by modern standards, yes, you can quote lincoln, and lincolns saying that black people all have to leaf america if leave america if this is going to work. Okay, you can quote lincoln as saying he says a lot of stuff that makes the modern sensibility kind of queasy. But its important to note that if lincoln, if lincoln passed muster on those points in the year 2020, he never would have had a prayer of getting elected president in 1860. And so, you know, progress is made by people like lincoln who have one foot squarely in their own time, and only once they have that firm footing in their own time can they take a step in the direction of what with call the future or the right side of history. But if you took somebody from 2020 and dropped them back in the 1860s, they would be so removed from the people of the day that it would have know effect. Remember, we live in a democracy, and you have to get people to vote for you. And if you live in a time where most white people who are all the voters in the country have their own racialistic way of thinking, then if you are utterly born from them, you not going to get elected. John brown never could have been elected president of the United States. I just want to ask because you brought up the present. Just been reading a report about the rise of mill that activity, very real threat of violence from groups who will not accept the results of the election, fears of civil war being stoked. Rob asked, you know, given the political environment, chasm between blue states and red states and the geographic locations of the bastions of political parties, how much is the struggle for civil rights and the universe rights that brown and lincoln fought for so vigorously economist today . How much of it exists today . I would say that there is a much greater appreciation of who should receive call rights today equal rights today than there was in lincolns day. And in lincolns day, there was a much greater perception than there was in, or say, George Washingtons day. The concept of human rights has evolved over time. The enlightenment thinkers of europe and america 1880s invented the concept of human rights. If you had told somebody in 1750 that all people is have common rights, theyd say youre crazy. But now we pretty much take that for granted, and we think thats something that everybody should aspire to. Nobody awe spired to it in 1750, and the striking thing about American History is that its been this progressive assent, ill call it an ascent, to greater rights for people. Is have we perfected that . By no means. Well, im sorry there are so many questions we didnt get to. Some of them are answered in the book. Others are not, im afraid to say, but i really am grateful to you, bill brands, for joining us tonight. My pleasure. Great to talk to you. And thanks to everybody who watched. H. W. Brands, the zealot and the emancipator. We encourage you to support a cappella books by buying a copy from them, theres a link at the Atlanta History Center web site. Full schedule coming up, on monday im going to be speaking with a legendary atlanta an n, owner of the falcons and now author of the book good company. On wednesday, bowling alone author Robert Putnam has a new book out, its called the upswing how america came together a century ago and how we can do it again. Im going to be speaking with him and his coauthor. Full schedule at Atlanta History Center. Com. Thank you so much for tuning in tonight. Thank you again, h. W. Brands, and thanks for your terrific questions. Good night. Here are some of the current best selling books according to news max. Topping the list is the essential scalia, a collection of the Late Supreme Court justice antonin scalias writings edited by jeffrey sutton. Thats followed by where i come from. Then in sicily 43, author James Holding remembers the allied invasion of italy during world war ii. After that, the rise of alexanderrer hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and john adams in the patriots. And wrapping up our look at some of the best selling books according to newsmax is the sentinel, the latest in the fictional jack reacher series. Some of these authors have appeared on booktv, and you can watch their events online at booktv. Org. During an author talk hosted by the Commonwealth Club in san francisco, environmental a activist Erin Brockovich discussed the dangers of Climate Change with climate one founder greg dalton. Heres a portion of their conversation. If seeing is believing, i think Climate Change has been something thats been difficult for people because you cant really see it. You know, we think of climate and its air and where is it. It reminds me when i was out in hinkley and i was looking at the twoheaded frog and the green water, and that visual meant everything to e to me. And so i talk about Climate Change a lot, and i had a picture that was sent to me two days ago at noon. It was dark but yet it was orange. It was a moonscape. If you dont know what Climate Change is, that picture shows you. And were visual, most of us are, and whats happening now for all of us, weve seen the fires in australia, weve certainly exi appearanced them on the west experienced them on the west coast. And i let people know if you can think of it as a weather phenomenon, because you can almost visualize a tornado or a hurricane or a fire and what the Climate Change and the Global Warming has done. And i let people know because they dont always see it, somebody asked me but what does water have to do with Climate Change. And im like, okay, well, thats an excellent question. Ill try not to be frustrated, because im like, oh, my gosh, climate water, and that is something that i hope you visualize. I mean, part of whats happening here is weve been in this drought. And so we have less water. We talk about it in the book, you know, and johannesburg, south africa, they were literally going to have no water. So Climate Change is about too much water, not enough water, no water, drought, flooding. And the conversation is really gearing up, and its always been there. But i believe the conversations getting bigger because its affecting everyone, and theyre actually visually experiencing and seeing a result. And it can be suffocating, and its frightening, and the losses can be great. So i just, i hate to say it, the movie twister, and i dont know who saw it, but bill paxton is waiting, watching the storm coming, and one of husband workers comes up his workers coming up and is referencing, oh, you know, you can see it. He says, oh, my gosh, hes coming. And bill paxton that moment stopped, and he said its already here. And so i think its becoming real because its tangible. Its touchable. Youre running from it. Youre breathing it. Youre or swimming in it. You could be drowning in it. I just think its here, and i know that sounds dramatic, but it is dramatic. And im often struck with rachel carson, and i quote this in the book, supermans not coming, she talks about how man has the a power to alter nature, and thats a battle thats not going to be won but us. We look to ourselves and master and alter our responses, our solutions and our actions. To watch the rest of this program, visit our web site, booktv. Org. Search for Erin Brockovich or the title of her book, supermans not coming, using the box at the so much the page. At the top of the page. And booktv in prime time starts now. First, Bloomberg News pankaj mishra, then nancy grace provides a guide on how citizens can protect themselves and avoid becoming a victim of crime. Followed by author Isabel Wilkerson who explores what she calls a hidden caste system in the United States. Also this evening, carlos lo saad da offers his thoughts on the volume of books written about president trump, and judge jeffrey sutton, former law clerk to judge anthony calea, discusses the late ly ya, discusses the late justices writings. Find more information on your Program Guide or at booktv. Org. Now heres pankaj mishra. Hello and welcome to the new york public [inaudible] this is the must read series. Im the literary editor of the new republic, and today im talking with pankaj mishra, his new book is the essay collection. Pankaj, thank you so much for coming on. Thank you for having me. So your book brings together essays and interventions written over a period over the last de