The founding fathers, their patriotic convictions. He argued the bible was influential on the founders decision for war regardless of what they believed it was the word of god. This talk was part of a symposi symposium hosted by the museum of the bible in washington, d. C. Its 45 minutes. Our Third Session today is the bible and the american revelatire revolution with james byrd. In this presentation based on his latest book, james byrd shows the bible was a key text of the american revolution. When war came to the colonies, preachers and patriots alike turned to the bible not only for solace, but for exoratio oexor fight. Con vered on those who died for the revolution, the halo of martyrdom. In this session, dr. Byrd will examine biblical texts and how they were used especially in making the patriotic cause for war. Case for war. James byrd is associate professor of american religious history at vanderbilt university. His latest book is sacred scripture, sacred war the bible and the american revolution. Hes currently working on a book on the bible and the american civil war. Please join me in welcoming dr. Byrd. Well, thank you. Im so pleased to be here and to be joining in this important conversation at the museum of the bible. Im very honored to be sharing the podium with professors dreisbach and kidd, two scholars that ive admired for years, and i especially thank the team here at the museum of the bible, kay peninger, all of you for putting this together, im just very honored to be participating. My focus and my angle on this specifically deals a little more with the war, itself, and in doing this, i have two topics that i try to bring together. One is the history of the bible in america, and the history of war in america. So i do a little extensively with war and violence and the bible and how the bible has been part of our justifications for going to war and our protests against it. So i got interested in this a few years ago just curious about and all of our projects begin with a certain amount of curiosity, curious about how the bible was included in the american revolution. And being kind of a computer geek, myself, i decided that i would just design a database and try to pick out all the biblical texts and then sort them and then i would have the answer. That may have been a mistake because it took me a few years to do this before i could even write the book. So i thought, okay, ill get the database together, then ill write the book based on the database. Thats what i did, but that involved going to a lot of texts, most of which are not in modern fonts, let me tell you, nor modern spelling, and going to each page and finding each little bible verse. And many times they cite the bible verse, sometimes they dont so it involved me kind of scanning through sometimes and i actually grew up learning the bible a bit and in sunday school we used to do the draw swords bible exercise. So i had general knowledge there. And just using the citations i could find to put together a database. Then at the end of it, i just printed them all out and said, well, i guess these are the big texts. And then i went through an analysis of these texts and thats what the book turns out to be. So i want to talk about some of these texts today and how they were represented, why they were important in revolutionary america specifically dealing with the war. So the next one, the next book is on the civil war, and it involves a lot more in terms of like the bible and how and a lot more texts to deal with. And this one is kind of a its involving a little more Computer Programming to get to. I want to start by talking about thomas payne. Tom paynes an interesting character for all times. And one of the most interesting insights that he brings us on the bible comes from common sense. Most of you probably read common sense. It was the most probably the most read pam met in revolutionary america. Common sense was written for a particular reason in 1776. It was written to argue that declaring independence, which they later did in 1776, was just common sense. So he was attempting to deal with arguments that everyone could agree on. He was attempting to just take the pulse of the society and to make a persuasive case for declaring independence. Because, let me say, that going to war against britain in one way was one thing, but declaring independence was something altogether different. For many people, they didnt necessarily want to be declare independence. They were hoping to get a better parliament, perhaps a better king, a better situation. But paynes arguing that its only common sense to declare independence. And he uses scripture to do that. He uses specifically the Old Testament and one particular chapter, 1 samuel chapter 8 that i want to talk about a bit. You might remember 1 samuel chapter 8. The prophet samuel was getting a little old, the people start to think about new leadership. And in so doing they come to samuel and they say, hey, your sons arent all that impressive, how about you give us a king so that we can be like other nations . Now, just as an aside, if you read the hebrew bible, any time the people want to be like the other nations, thats not a good thing. So hes wrestling with this and he asked god and god says, all right, give them a king, but in so doing know theyre not just rejecting you, theyre rejecting me as they have done since i led them out of egypt. You know, and so god gave them a king not because it was a good thing to do, but because they wanted it and they demanded it. But in so doing, samuel argues that the king is going to oppress you. God tells samuel to tell them how a king is going to oppress them, a king is going to be just terrible to them and theyll be sorry they ever asked for a king. Well, thomas payne pulls this out and he uses it as an argument against the king, an argument for independence to say that its not just that a new king will help, any king is bad, we need to turn against all kings, monarchy is not the way to go. And this draws on that tradition that professor dreisbacm was talking about of hebraic republicanism. So payne quotes scripture immaculately in common sense. But did he believe it . Later on in another publication, age of reason, payne actually says bad things about the hebrew bible, he says the Old Testament is more the word of a demon than the word of god which is, you know, pretty bad. And yet he quotes scripture like billy graham here. I mean, he knows his bible. John adams actually when he encountered payne and had a conversation about this, about drawing on the Old Testament in common sense, payne just kind of brushed it aside and said i got that from milton. This is an argument against how the bible was influential in various ways regardless of whether or not the people quoting it actually believed that the bible was the revealed word of god in a specific way. This is a quote from gordon wood, one of the most eminent american religious not religious historians but american historians specifically in the revolutionary era. He says it was the clergy who made the revolution meaningful for most people. For every gentleman who read a scholarly pamphlet and delved in for an eczexplanation of events there were dozens of ordinary people who read the bible and looked to their ministers for an interpretation of what the revolution meant. So the bible was part of the language. It was part of the symbolism, part of the narratives anyone knew. If anyone owned a book, this is the case for the 19th century as well, in their families, if they only owned one book, it was probably the bible. So in talking about the bible as used to wage war or the bible as used by patriots, but in so doing in using the bible to wage any war, they had to overcome certain obstacles because the bible wasnt just a militant violent document. Theres a lot in the bible that speaks against violence. One had to overcome a few obstacles. I want to mention a few. One is pacifist texts seem to exist in scripture. Theres the decolouge, thou shalt not kill. But so the idea that nonresistance to evil is part of scripture is true, too, so its not just the bible is this militant text. Theres also an obstacle in the sense that a lot of christians because of their faith, because of their love for neighbor, resisted going to war. One of the most prominent civil war historians has argued that killing or trying to get christians to kill for their country was harder than trying to get them to die for their country. Argument was christians all along typically had this sense of selfsacrifice. Getting someone to take up arms and kill, that was the harder courage. That was the harder obstacle to overcome. For a lot of people in the civil war era. And thats the same case in the revolutionary war era. Same kind of situation. There was the fact a lot of loyalists knew how to quote scripture really well including those methodists. They do scripture pretty well and they were for the most part like john wesley, for the most part. They were english. So i want to talk about a couple frameworks or kinds of ways to frame the way people looked at the bible in the revolutionary period. Because as i argue, many colonists could not assess their wars without assessing scripture. Well talk about that a second. When they were coming to when people were dealing with going to war, dealing with a new kind of nation, they naturally appealed to scripture because scripture was not only the authority in all of life for many people, but it was also a consoling text. People went to scripture in all kinds of trial. The death of a loved one r, any kind of crisis. It was natural that people who were going to war, thinking about war, would appeal to scripture. When they appealed to scripture, they could not comprehend scripture without referencing war. And by that i mean as they read scripture, they came to many of them were very, very proficient at scripture. They saw there was a lot of war in the bible. There was a lot of conflict in the bible. In various kinds of ways. Just outright wars. So a Biblical Society knew the bible was full of war and they understood this. Couple of frameworks that they also took with them, one is republicanism. And we talked about this already a bit today, but republicanism is this kind of respect for ancient republics as, like, pivotal models for politics. So taking those models from the classic world. Were in this great city, washington, d. C. When you look around at the architecture, do you notice a certain neoclassical influence . Its subtle, but you can see it. Well, this republican ideology, this idea that these ancient republics valued virtue and liberty, virtue and liberty came together as we talked about, that without virtue, liberty just dies. It doesnt exist. And vice and tyranny go together. That governments, like people, are fallen and are prone to corruption, especially when you have too much power involved. So they found republican ideas throughout scripture. I mean, the Old Testament covenants. Think about in the Old Testament when a king comes forward, good kings and bad kings are fairly easy to identify. The good the kings that do good things usually prosper. The kings that do bad things usually dont prosper. And thats the case with other figures. So you can see how that would fit very well into a republican world view. Another idea, in addition to republicanism, is martyrdom. One of the most popular books that protestants read throughout history was foxs book of martyrs. Probably some of you have seen this or read it. Dont try to download it on the kendall because it will crash your system, it has so many images, i found out. Its a group of narratives of martyrdom. Specifically martyrdom catholics have imposed on protestants earlier on in the reign of queen mary of the time i. It, itself, bridge brings toges value that christianity is worth dying for. That this idea of sacrifice is something thats valued that they found throughout scripture. And pretty soon, you see, i mean, one historian, susan juster, says colonial americans have a martyr complex, they see martyrdom everywhere. The idea comes across through the war when you see in washington soldiers in the continental army, preachers interpret their deaths as, their dying as martyrs for their country. We see this through the civil war. Wartime death is seen as martyrdom. So this idea of martyrdom is pretty critical. Now, this one i saw everywhere. Just everywhere. Saturated the documents. Saturated the sermons. And thats this concept of military and spiritual warfare. Now as i said, when people looked at the bible, they found war and conflict everywhere. The bible was a book of war. But it wasnt just a book of military warfare. They saw spirituality as a warfare. Do any of you remember seeing anything like this in scripture even in the new testament that spirituality is a war between good and evil, war in the soul, its a constant conflict within us, good versus evil going on. This kind of spiritual warfare and military warfare merged in some of these merged in some of these sermons, especially, where people saw that spirituality and military patriotism went hand in hand. Another aspect of this had to do with means, means, the means of waging war. Now, when declaring war, if people believed that god was on their side in a war, there could be a tendency to kind of, well, do we really need to fight. Do we all really need to join . Do we need to battle if god is on our side, it will all turnout. Preachers would preach against that saying well you woupt sldn say in your spiritual life, well if god loves me i dont have to go to church or read scripture or pray. God gives us the means to do warfare, god gives us the means military warfare through the best of weaponry and courage. So we shouldnt depend on god to do it all. We should use the means that god provides us in this spiritual and military warfare. There is also a sense that especially ministers in the revolutionary period tend to think that some believe that christians, again, some christians shouldnt go to war, or if they do go to war they wouldnt be ts best soldiers. So there was a real argument that christians are the best soldiers. That if you are really a christian youll be the best military soldier ever. I have a quote from this from massachusetts 1771, not yet the american revolution, but still its kind of in the era. I would not intimate that every good christian is of consequence a good soldier, an accomplished man of war, but this ill venture to say there cannot be a good soldier, an accomplished man of war, destitute of the principle and practice of christianity. Eli forbes. I want to specifically talk about a biblical character here that seemed to exemplify that, and thats david. David is just fascinating in so many different ways. I mean, think about the story of david. David had it all. I mean, what did he not have . He was handsome. He was strong. He was courageous. I mean, you know, as a child it was one of my favorite biblical text where david slays goliath with a sling shot. I had a sling shot. Who could have any problem with david . He was amazing. He had it all going on. And heres a many sermons talk about david heres one from the prerevolutionary period talking about david is a man after gods own heart. David was a man after gods heart. Yet he was a man of war. Skilled in the bloody art, and furnished above the common standard, with the qualifications of war. In this art, terrible as it is, he informs us that he was taught of god. So david was both spiritual and a courageous warrior. He would go to write a psalm about spirituality and depth of relationship with god and then go slay 100 thes lannians. He was fascinating hero of the scriptures. And he kind of brings together heroism and spirituality together. But david was also interesting in another way. Think again about the republican world view of the revolutionary era. Think again about the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely the need for balance of powers. Then lets think of the david story. Again, david had it all. David was mighty in faith and mighty with the sword. David was a military leader, a great king. I mean, if any one could be the perfect king, it would be david. And yet when david became king, what happened . There is the incident with bath sheba, the incident with others, he gets this power, and staying back from the war, and committing adultery with bat sheba and having her husband murdered. Can you find a better argument that power corrupts absolutely. Giving someone too much power will corrupt that person, no matter who they are, even david was corruptible if given too much power. Now i want to talk about some specific biblical texts. This is one i must confess that i did not know about growing up. This is a story that i did remember, but just vaguely. Its a story in the book of judges, specifically about a judge named deborah. And the verse that gets quoted over and over again in various contexts, in revivalist contexts, preaching for revival and war context, especially in war context, is the curse of moros. Curse yee bitterly against the help of the lord against the mighty. Okay, lets break this down a little bit. First of all, where was moros . I asked one of our colleagues vanderbilt happened to be writing a commentary on the book of judges, so i asked him a few years ago, what is it . Q3 have no idea. And they really didnt know that much in the revolutionary period, but they did know that deborah issued this curse from god because the people of moros, wherever they would not would not fight for god for the can nines, would not join the fight. But one that did join the fight was jael. She was the one who fought for israel by slaying assist a ro c the canon nights and kind of lured him into the tent, and when he went to school, took a tent peg and drilled it through his skull. Good biblical text. By doing so said she had courage. This played well. Preachers picked up deborah and jael as two women who would fight and mighty in battle. So this was the most cited, based on what i could find, curse of meroz was the most biblical verse for 100 years, through the revolution. And here is another one by the way that got a good bit of play. This is from jeremiah. Cursed be he that keep back his sword from the blood. And if thats not a holy war text, it will do, i guess, right. I want to specifically talk about peter and paul a little bit. Among the various texts in wartime, there was a lot of Old Testament narrative. And that makes sense because there is a lot of war in the Old Testament. I mean, there are a lot of battles, a lot of armys, a lot going on there. And in so doing, people drew on these texts over and over and over, they had something that was ripe for the pickings. But passivists tended to point that out. And not only passivists, but those particularly opposed to a certain war, and they would say, well, sure you can find a lot of war in the hebrew bible or the Old Testament. But what about the new testament . And this is also the case in the civil war i find. More and more argue over testaments. Well, how relevant is war for the new testament . So there were several ways in which people who wanted to argue against war could make that move. And one we mentioned is the sermon on the mound, where jesus says turn the other cheek. When someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other, which seems to be nonresistant. Could be read as pass viistism. Thats one of the top ten cited in this era. So one that wanted to prove war they often cited the text just as they cited somehow shall not kiln other tegts. But it was most profitable that wanted to argue for to show how the new testament also spoke about war. And they did this in a few different ways. One way had to do with the book of revelation. Now, you probably know i was going to mention the book of revelation. If you read anything about had the colonial era and war, often people speak of millenism and a po apocalyptic. This is war like. If you read it lately, a lot of fighting there, a lot of evil beings to fight and a lot of symbolism that is quite violent throughout. So sometimes ministers would point to the book of revelation as a new testament text that endorses war. And specifically they would look at revelation chapter 19 where jesus rides in as a war like figure. So even jesus goes to war in the book of revelation. So the book of revelation is a key text. But even more prominent were texts from peter and paul. Because the idea being, you know, would the apostles support war . What would they do about going to war . And specifically for peter and paul the great apostles, would they side with the loyalists or would they side with the patriots . And there was a lot of angst built over that question. So ill read you a couple of texts, and well just read these tektds, and lets just see which side they tend to fall down on, loyalist or patriot. Lets start with peter. Peter chapter 2, versus 17, this is part of that, submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the lords sake. As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of malicious necessary, but as servants of god. Honor all men. Love the breert hood. Fear god. Honor the king. Well, how might that go . Heres one from paul, which is the most cited text in the revolutionary remember a. Romans chapter 13, and let me say it gets a lot of play in the civil war as well. Let every soul be subject onto the higher powers. For there is no power but of god. The powers that be are ordained of god. Whatsoever therefore resist et the power, resist the ordinance of god. And they that resist, shall receive to themselves dam nation. For he is the minister of god to thee for good. But if though do that which is evil be afraid, for he beer et not the sword in vane. For he is the minister of god, a revenger, a revenger to execute wrath on him that do eth evil. So obey the king, the higher powers because they are ministers of god, they represent god. Some of the loyalists liked these tekts quixts quite a bit. Among those were methodists like john westerly, fletcher and other anglican ministers like charles, but before the revolution and during the revolution. And you can see why. I mean, peter is saying god honor the king, to oppose the king is to oppose the king. God was a king. God put kings in power. That the king was the revenger of god. The king does the work of god. And going back specifically one more part of that text, i want to use this, as free, it talks about freedom and liberty. Because one of the things that the loyalists were arguing was that patriots are using term of liberty in the long way. This specifically says, as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of malicious necessarness. Not taking it too far. Not misunderstanding your liberty. That almost seems taylor made for loyalists for that argument. So the loyalist argument is this, lets read the text from the apostles and lets consider the political consideration. The political consideration was they were under the control of the roman empire. And being under the control of the roman empire, they had to deal with jews, with their own churches, and they had to deal with the fact that the roman empire controlled everything. And was typical in many cases, a lot of people tended to blame the jews. A lot of arnt jewish rhetoric. And in the colonial period, some loyalists were saying well the problems were 9 jethe jews were stirring up a lot of problems and insurrections. And paul and peter were worried that the christians would cause problems too. That they would join in these insurrections and became these radicals in politics and just start all these wars and all these things. So the problem was that christians were getting a bad reputation. People were thinking they were disloyal. So peter and paul commanded this em to obey the roman government. They commanded them to be good citizens, join in the government in any way. Now, lets think about the row plan government for a second. What was the roman government doing in regard to christians . They specifically were thinking about emperor neuro and emperors prosecuting christians. Is they say look how tir annual the roman government was. Thats worse than king george the third. Say what you want but hes not killing christians. You cant say that much for neuro. He tormented and executed christians. And yet even though they were living under a hostile roman government, including roman emperors who were killing christians, persecuting christians, peter and paul say, fear god, honor the kipg. Peter and paul still say that the king is the minister to all. The minister of god. Revenger on those who do evil. So the message, some of the loyalists said, was obey all rulers, even the bad ones. Respect authority because god put them in authority for a reason. So what you call patriotism is really just ambition. Its self esness in disguise. And all patriotic revolts do is create more violence. What about the patriotic argument, what are they going to do with texts like fear god and honor the king. What are they going to do with the tegts that say the Civil Authority are the revengers of god and wrongdoers, that obey them just as you are obeying god . What can you do with that . Is there any way you can go with that . Well, of course. Lets see, onthan may thou before the revolution that title is really helpful, and people like john adams cousin, concerning unlimp i ited sub submission, use this text and many, many others. Lets think about their argument. They say look again at the historical context. Peter and paul what they were doing was making general statements about respecting authority. Sub submission didnt mean unlimited submission to any king or any authority. The problem with saying that they were endorsing unlimited submission to any king, too many biblical text that show people of god disobeying kings, revolting against kings. I mean, anybody remember exodus and pharaoh and dar yell and daniel . They were bad kings. And the people of god did not have to take it from any bad king. So it couldnt have been about unlimited submission to any king. Lets look at pauls situation. Paul specifically writing to the romans, he was dealing with christians who were just taking a little too literally the idea that christ kingdom is not of this world. Sometimes christians take that a little too literally. Not of this world doesnt mean this world is gone. It means you still have to live in the world, but live in la different way. So paul is saying, the key to understanding this, is one specific verse, one specific section of averse that people tend to overlook. And that is, paul said that the ruler was the minister of god to thee for good. So if the ruler is not acting in the peoples best interests, if the ruler is not gods minister for the peoples good, then christians should resist. Christians should rebel against that minister origi against tha king. Part of this then means, the patriots said, we have to have common sense when approaching the minister. These commands for gods honoring the king, they are basic commands that deal with authority. Like the bible tells children to obey parents. But does that mean the bible want children to obey a parent who throws a mad fit and tries to cut all their childrens threats. That was from mayhew. Sometimes speeches could interesting back then with the graphic details. So the idea is respect the king. But based on how the king performs the kings duties and not specifically for just because the king is the king. So evaluate leadership. So what the patriots are arguing against the loyalist, really you are proof texting without understanding the true context. You have to read the true context to understand it. But what it really becomes is an argument over what that context is. The loyalists have a view, the patriots have a view over what that context is over all. So several conclusions on this. The revelation its arguable was the most important event in American History. The revolution, it creates the nation, sets the nation in motion. And the revolution becomes like it becomes an enduring symbol for what the nation is all about, fighting for liberty. Many different ways in which fighting for liberty manifests itself. But even in the civil war, the revolutionary period is almost like a biblical text of its own. Because both the confederates and the unionist are arguing they are the ones that are best following in the footsteps of the patriots. So we can make the mistake that the revolution era was the pif poll point in American History. Ap the bible was arguably the most influential book in the revolutionary period. Its the book that the most people knew about. The people that most people read. The book that most people honored as authority. There is differences in the way people read the bible then and people read the bible then. People that read the bible then, this was before a lot of higher criticism and arguments over different ways of reading the bible, from historical perspectives and other perspectives. More or less when people read the bible, they read the bible as it was, and pretty much took it as it was. Thats not to say that there werent skeptics on the bible. Certainly some of the founders and others in enlightenment era were skeptical about certain views on the bible. There were some skepticism. But from my stewedy, i believe biblical skepticism did in no way interfere with biblical pattism. So some of the people that were scap tal about scripture as authoritative as all of word of god completely true, also used scripture to make claims about pat reterroris patriotism about loyalty. So skel tap views of scripture as revelation, scripture was still significant. Through the revolution then they became american and so did the bible. One of the things i find reading through especially into the 19th century, i mean it really would have helped if i wrote the civil war book first, then i would have understood the revolution a little better, but then i had to write the revolution book to understand the civil war better. Its a vicious cycle. We should probably have to go back and rewrite our books. One one of the things i see over and over through the civil war from both sides, in honoring the patriots and revolution, honoring scripture goes hand in hand. And as part of that, there is this sense that the bible itself is it the nations book. That the bible that the nation itself has a biblical kind of aura around it. Thats a biblical nation, although they disagree radically over what that means. But it did, when i say that, the bible became patriotically american, in many cases people see it as a patriotic book. That the bible preaches patriotism. If the bible did, its a militant patriotism. One of the things that we cannot ignore Going Forward is the military antsy of scripture, and thats something that we have to really come to terms with. One of my favorite sections of professor george larsons book on edwards, and Jonathan Edwards is one of my other kinds of interesting favorite people to read, and though i dont agree with everything he said and all the images that he preached, but Jonathan Edwards lived in a world, and the world that he lived in was very much like the world we see in lord of the rings and star wars, this idea that we are in this kind of enchanted world, and its good versus evil. That what we see on a daily life, in our daily life is not just what we see, there is more to it than that. There is good ser vus evil every where and we are always in the midst of t and its a very meaningful struggle. I think we have to remember that. I think that has to be part of that, part of any understanding of this time and understanding of scripture. Because scripture is read in that kind of context. Thats where we get to military and spiritual warfare and violent imagery there. And im not saying its good or bad. Im just saying we have to think about it. Its certainly part of the tradition. I mean look through your hymns in churches, if you have one there in the pew, and notice all the imagery, its part of scripture, its there. That leads us into conversations about religious violence. And to the exit tenth that thats still a conversation that we have to be a part of. We have to come to terms with how we view the mill taristic images in scripture and which contexts should they be interpreted. There is also this just war and sacred war kind of question. Inevitably people ask, and the email correspondence that ive received on this book, people will ask, was the revolutionary war a just war or was the revolutionary war a holy war . Were they fighting a holy war . Or were they fighting a just war . And my answer is always yes. And by that i mean they lived in a world in which just war theory was prominent, specifically they believed that they were not to be fighting wars of vengeance, wars in which god sent them to war and they were just to annihilate everyone as kind of like a ban, hebrew passages, they believed in just theory and certain wars going to war. So they argued specifically, many times revolutionary would say we are having a just war, they would talk about it in just war terminology. But they same time they couldnt also help talking about a just war could also be a godly war because god was a god of justice. So there is not really a stark division. And like another quote from george maria son said the problem with just war theory is its just a theory, it doesnt deal with how people behave. And i find that also the case when reading the texts on the bible and the american revolution. Thank you. I really appreciate this. Its been a great opportunity. Thank you. [ applause ] heres whats ahead. Next, more about the bible and how the founding father is created the nation. Then a look at the faith of Benjamin Franklin. And later a discussion on the bibles influence on the american revolution. And join us tonight when American History tv is in prime time. Our focus will be the museum of the bible in washington d. C. , which held a symposium on the bible and the founding of america. Well also hear from Baylor University professor thomas kidd on Benjamin Franklin faith. American history tv is in prime Time Beginning at 8 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan3. Tonight, book tv is in prime time with a look at military biographies. Retired Lieutenant General daniel boll gear interviews chuck haggle and brother tom who is the focus of his book, our year of war. Then retired u. S. Captain flow groberg on his book, 8 seconds of courage. Then jerry yellen in his book the last fighter pilot. And later author max boot is interviewed about his book, the road not taken. Book tv all this week in prime time on cspan 2. Also today eric trump, son of President Donald Trump will discuss national harbor. You can look live coverage beginning at 6 00 p. M. Eastern on our companion network cspan. And join us tonight for more from c pack with remarks from Vice President mike pence. He spoke this morning to the conservative gathering. You can watch his full speech tonight 8 00 p. M. Eastern also on cspan. Monday on cspans landmark cases. Well look at the Supreme Court case mccul la v. Maryland. Explore this case and high courts ruling with university of virginia far a peterson and mark kellen beck, alaska law professor and author of the book securing a nation. Watch live monday 9 eastern on cspan or listen with the free cspan radio app. And background order landmark cases companion book, available for 8. 95 plus shipping. And Additional Resources link on the website interactive constitution. Our panel of historians