This is part of a symposium on reconstruction, hosted by the u. S. Capital historical society. For those of you who were not here at the beginning today, my name is paul finkelman. Im a historian and i also have the honor of being the president of Gratz College in greater philadelphia and i am the symposium organizer for this symposium on reconstruction. Were about to begin our next session, and our next session deals with issues of public understanding in the modern period in reconstruction, and we have two speakers this morning. We have Vernon Burton whos from clemson university, and we have brook thomas who is from the university of california at irvine. Both of them are stunningly important scholars in this world. Vernon burton is the judge matthew j. Perry distinguished chair of history and a professor of pan african studying, sociology and anthropology and Computer Science at clemson university, which is to say hes mostly the entire university at this point. His i could read all of his distinguished awards and honors, and then he wouldnt have time to talk. I can only say that he has written a number of very important books. He has given major lectures at many institutions, most recently the annual lecture in southern history at the university of arkansas, and he his books have been in the book of the month club, the history book club, and other clubs. I have always hoped that i could be in a club that vernon was a member of, and im delighted to introduce him to start this mornings program. Thank you so much. [ applause ] thank you to everyone who made this possible. It is a Wonderful Group of people who worked so hard to bring this together. I wont try to name everyone, but again, thank you for all your hard work. Im a little awkward in the sense my mother used to always tell me that fools names and fools faces are seen in public places, and yet, paul asked me to talk about a little bit my own experience as an Expert Witness in Voting Rights cases, and im afraid it sounds a little selfcongratulatory, so im just going to apologize, but before i get into that, i want to make one comment about yesterdays sessions, which were so exciting. If you were there, you know that. If you missed it, you missed an incredibly intellectual feast, but when we think of reconstruction, i think its too often we separate it from the civil war, and i dont think people did that at the time, and one piece of evidence is the overthrow of reconstruction by paramilitary terrorists that brought about this coup detat in 1876 in at least three states that i investigated, several of them who rode in 1876 to overthrow reconstruction, then applied for the states confederate veterans pensions. Those people thought that they were and saw themselves as part of the civil war, though they had not fought in it. I think thats something we want to remember. This is the sesquicentennial of reconstruction and i just want to note that people are not as interested in reconstruction as they are the civil war. They look at the civil war, and they say that the very existence of the United States was at stake, the bloodiest war in our history. The civil war also posed in very critical ways, in fact, what clearly become consistent themes in American History, the character of the nation, the fate of africanamericans, and i would say you could read that larger as the place of minorities and all sorts of people in a democracy, the very meaning of pluralism, yet reconstruction is the most important, i think, and least understood period in United States history. If we can locate the identity of america, its in reconstruction, more so than the civil war, i believe, and reconstruction, if were finding a meaning in what we became and how and why we as a nation have done and do things. Reconstruction was a dangerous time as people and communities worked out new systems. Reconstruction showed the real possibilities of an interracial democracy. During reconstruction, africanamericans knew the importance of the right to vote. Africanamerican leader frederick douglass, lets see how this works, declared the right to vote was the keystone of the arch of human liberty. After the civil war, many former abolitionists joined africanamericans in thinking that voting as a principle should be enshrined in the constitution. Now, some thought the 14th amendment would have accomplished that. Some thought laws such as the civil rights about of 1866 would do so, but ultimately it would require a new amendment to the constitution. Section 1 of the 15th amendment of the constitution stated the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and section 2 specified by then the familiar congressional enforcement clause, the Congress Shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Now, the various cross currents that we talked about yesterday led to close divisions for ratifications in many states including some states that voted twice defeating the amendment and then ratified it. Or like the case of new york ratified it and then tried to rescind its ratification. Nevertheless, the 15th amendment was ratified in early 1870, the constitution now defined that new birth of freedom that lincoln talked about. With citizenship secured by the 14th amendment and the right to vote secured by the 15th amendment, africanamericans could protect themselves through the rule of law, could shape those laws by standing for political office, and could choose leaders with free debate and an honest ballot. With universal male suffrage provided by the new Southern States constitutions backed by the 15th amendment black political participation exploded. Voting was followed by africanamerican office holding. We heard about senator Charles Sumner that Ardent Supporter of black rights believed the ballot ensured africanamerican citizenship and effective protection against white supremacy. Writing in 1867 after the reconstruction franchised africanamerican men in the form of confederacy to vote for the new state constitution, he believed that suffrage would be immortal. He wrote the rights of suffrage once given can never be taken away. Sumner believed that with the 13th and 14th amendment you didnt even need a 15th amendment. Congress could just pass a law, as he said, under the power of making regulations, you cannot disfranchise a race. You cannot degrade the country. You cannot degrade the age. Okay, now we can all go home. Voting rights were accomplished. Just because a law or even an amendment to the constitution is passed does not mean it is done and people obey the law. Historians generally debate the end of reconstruction, and they say that it ends with the election of hayes, the withdrawal of the few remaining federal troops from the south. Reconstruction, i think, really ends when the dream of equality before the law was entirely cut off by violent that allowed horrific discrimination and mayhem. Reconstruction ends when the gains for freedom of africanamericans during reconstruction were legally undone by the Supreme Court. The ultimate rejection of africanamerican rights granted by the 15th amendment was the Supreme Courts approval in williams v. Mississippi in 1898 of the 1890 disfranchising conventions in the form of confederate states. With that stamp of approval, then the states of the confederacy instituted all sorts of voting restrictions. You know about a lot of them. Then theres an outrageous oklahoma case where they said well allow black people to vote, but we just wont count the votes. The United States government accepted jim crow, but africanamericans never did. The black community continued efforts to enforce Voting Rights, but to little avail until the Civil Rights Movement of 1960s. It was really a century before Congress Finally followed Charles Sumners advice about that law, and thats the Voting Rights act of 1965. It was hard fought just as the first reconstruction had been hard fought. The act was necessary for enforcement because so many other laws to guarantee the right to vote had not worked. After president johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act of 1964 on july 2nd, 1964, he almost immediately turned to his acting attorney general to begin work with congress to prepare and i cannot take gods name in vain, but Lyndon Johnson said the gd toughest Voting Rights act that you can devise. Under the Voting Rights act, cases have been generally filed under one or two separate sections of the Voting Rights act, section five and section two. Now section two of the Voting Rights act says that as a means of eradicating voting practices that minimize or cancel out the voting strength and political effectiveness of minority groups. Section two bans the use of tests that interfere with the right to vote, literacy tests, for example, and bans procedures that cause an unequal burden for minority voters or any other changes that minimize or dilute minority voting strength. What is vote dilution . It is sort of swapping the votes of the minority voters with the majority voters. Annexation was a classic way, particularly after the Voting Rights act. Of course use of at large elections requiring candidates to run city wide or county wide rather than from the smaller districts was the very cornerstone of vote dilution. Thats because of laws themselves that segregated, so you have minorities living in residence segregated areas, they often represented the majority of an area or elected district, thus have potential for electing candidates of their choice, where elections are conducted at large, however, whites are the majority of the electorate. Heres the key. Where whites vote as a block against candidates preferred by minority votes. If you didnt have racial block voting, it wouldnt matter. The candidates preference would be submerged in a larger pool of white voters. Section two set forth broad protections, it places burdens on the minority plaintiffs to bring the lawsuit and prove discrimination. In practice, lawsuits under section two are so expensive that citizens seldom can afford, they dont have money or Legal Expertise to pursue a successful claim, unless backed by a huge law firm which was often the case, whether it be department of justice or organizations, aclu, but these organizations have limited funds. Contrast that in fact with the jurisdiction who is defending the suit. They pull from tax money. Every person pays their tax money, including the very citizens who are bringing the suit. So theyre actually in their tax money paying for the county to work against them. Now section 5 of the Voting Rights act was the most novel feature, one of the most effective enforcement mechanisms, it is whats called preclearance requirement. All changes in voting praktss covered by Voting Rights special provision had to be preapproved by one of two fact finders, a three judge panel in the federal courts in the district of columbia, or department of justice. Especially you begin to see some things that happened with the passage of Voting Rights act. I was involved in a Charleston County council election, and right before the Voting Rights act there was an article that interviewed all of the Council Members of charleston, South Carolina, and they said, it is quoted in the paper, we really like ward elections, it gives us contact with the people and were closer to them. Then you have the Voting Rights act comes about, two years later, charleston goes to at large elections. Blacks begin to register to vote. I looked at the state of South Carolina. About threefourths of all counties changed to at large elections. Elections following Voting Rights act. Is that a coincidence . Thats what they do in the court cases. It gets trickier in this case. In the school board, jenkins, great civil rights leader from South Carolina. Drove a bus and doesnt get the credit he deserves. Its really his idea of getting this going. And he ran for the school board on johns island. He didnt win. He came in third, but he did come in before one white person. Next year, following that election, what do they do . They change that some School Boards will be elected and some will be appointed. So i get out the map and guess which boards are elected. Those where whites live and those where blacks live. These are the kind of tricks and laws and things that were coming about that the Voting Rights act was able to tackle. Section 5 was on the minor bty victims of voter description. They dont have to bring a case. Section two applies to the entire nation. But section 5 applies to covered jurisdictions. How did congress decide which they are going to enforce it in . Section 4 defines famously called the trigger. And this is based upon both history, that is you had to have had a device that diluted or kept africanamericans from having the same rights to vote. A literacy test. And then there was a mathematical formula that said according to the voting age population what percentage had to be more than 50 registered of those who voted that were registered had had to be 50 . So had to do both of those things. So 7 of the 9 states covered by the trigger are Southern States. Was the Voting Rights unfair because it picked on the states that did not allow americans to vote, some think so including a young law clerk for justice, now chief justice john ro betters. It was a 1980 Supreme Court case that very first time the Voting Rights act was challenged a lot, very first time the Supreme Court ruled against the Voting Rights act that got myself involved in Voting Rights cases and a lot of other historians as well. And thats mobile vs. Bodden. We talked about the delusion dill lugs process. They delaired plaintiffs must prove not only that an at large system has discriminatory effect, that blacks could not get elected there in the atlarge system, but it was maintained for the purpose of dluting minority voters. Now the legal profession, one of the things i learned has its own way of defining how one does intent. This was a 1977 insurance case. It lists the four things as sort of require d to show circumstantial intent. Im going to sort of put these on and you can read them. But the factors are consistent with the inquires a historian would make to draw conclusions on a purpose or intent. It was only two years and the view of many observers, the mobile decision that plaintiff hs to show intent was very inconsistent with the views of the u. S. Congress when it both adopted and then renewed the Voting Rights act from 1965, 1970 and 1975. So in 1982, a substantial bipartisan malkty in both houses revise the Voting Rights act to outlaw election measures that result in minority voting without requiring proof of discriminatory intent. So didnt really have to need it, but every attorney likes to have more than one in their quiver. Its much easier for a judge to say to his neighbors that this law discriminated, but we just wont talk about intent and not say that people were purposeful. It proved it later. Some of the cases got into it. Also important in 1982 with the 25year rejewnewal of the votin rights act, the Judiciary Committee issued an important report that the Supreme Court has called the authoritative source and the senate Judiciary Committee decided that the circumstances test is the evidentiary standard for the Voting Rights act. Heres my good example. Can everybody read this. [ inaudible ] the teacher understood the totality of circumstances. He knew what to do. But if you read what was said, youd think this to me is is a great example of totality of circumstances. The Senate Factors went back to a 1973 texas case in a related case with this circuit and listed out 7 plus 2, factors called the Senate Factors. Youll see that it is consistent with any good historian would o do. Look at these things if you were trying to get the totality of circumstances thats needed now. In other words, the courts used a Senate Factor when assessing whether a procedure results in prohibitive discrimination and violation of section 2. The factors which are outlined in the Senate Report are precisely the factors that a historian would want to look at. Its a way of organizing an independently verifiable historical analysis for the courts. Thats what i would summarize in almost every court case. You dont have to do them all, but i usually would. Attorneys now need historians then to establish not just intent, but also to do the Senate Factors. As congress recognized after the mobile decision in 1980, persuading a court to find intent is is a r formidable challenge. Proven intent has never been easier. But its become even more difficult now because modern politicians are much less careless about saying that its for a racial purpose. When i first started this, you could find quite a few and in texas you could find people saying, but its hard to do now as you can get their emails as tost what going on today. Work inkrecreased for experts w a 1986 case out of north carolina. You had to show three things that are statistical in order to prevail as minority plaintiffs. One is that as we talk about minority voters, whites normally vote together against the preferred choice of the candidate that you can show that minorities do vote together and agree on candidates. And thirdly, that you can actually form a district in some way that africanamericans could do it. And i did this because plaintiffs dont have is much money and it gets expensive. It was so simple when i started. All i would do is take the newspaper column of the election and i would get the percentage of each precinct. 99 black, 99 vote for the black candidate. 99 white, 99 vote and just let the judge read it. We both understood it. The next case they wanted me to use r. The next case r square d. Now its an inference, it is not rocket science. But huge amounts of money and time thats the burden of the minority plaintiffs to show something thats very simple. But thats just to give you a sense. Things have changed significantly from when i first became an Expert Witness. There was no report. I went through five. And then another rebuttal by the opposing expert. It was interesting. Minorities won almost every case in those days from the jingles decision in 1980 down to bush v. Texas in 1996. And this is something that just strikes meso much. The court ruled in 1996 that creating districts for africanamerican candidates of choice violated the 14th amendment right of whites. Now we have just studied why the 14th amendment was founded only to protect former enslaved people. That was the reason for it. You can see it. And it was used then to stop minorities from getting representation. Im very honored to be part of a civil rights and Voting Rights community. I have learned so much about history from these attorneys im working with and other Expert Witnesses. I learned how to do history and the importance of history. In shaping the circumstances of peoples lives. I have also learned about the law and how the law works opposed to how i thought the law worked. You heard a little bit of that today. Its not necessarily about justice. Its about these precedents that we have and its no wonder that randall is upset with the system we have now. First, im presented by my attorneys working for the minority client and they put on my evidence. Sort of like one attorney said i lay down the hay so the goats can get at it. Then the opposing attorney goes kroes, which is symbolic as well. If you have been the subject of a crossexamination. They attack my testimony, my credentials, my deposition, any and everything. I even have one accused me because i done Voter Registration years back and he said isnt it true you spent most of your time in college in civil rights. I thought a minute and said, no, thats not true. I spent most of my time in college studying or praying. Which the judge chuckled and then we did okay. I had to learn a lot about the rules of the court. For instance, newspapers cannot be presented as evidence. But i as a historian can present the newspapers as evidence and put it in and explain it and then its part of the court record. The most interesting case was when the kkk decided they would intimidate me. Thats one of the Senate Factors. I can actually tell about i just saw the clan trying to tell me to leave town. The judge says thats hearsay evidence. They said in this courtroom two years ago, i defended two clansman. I wont and got the parade permit ask could testify to the Senate Factors that there was a clan there. I wrote a report. The justice objected under section 5. Then South Carolina sued and we came right here to d. C. With a threejudge panel. That was interesting as part of the Senate Factors. They had been a big debate on on a license plate that said coon hunting. But the Africanamerican Community objected and then at the time the governor of South Carolina actually vetoed it because he saw the implications of what it meant. I admired him for that. He said now, vernon, you grew up in 96 South Carolina. You wouldnt think anything at all, would you, if you went to the gas station at noon at lunch and a couple friends were going coon hunting. I said, of course, i would be upset. You go hunting at nighttime. And most of the time you get possums, which got a good chuckle from people at the time. At the trial in d. C. , the states attorney said to me, do you think republicans are racist . I told them i didnt have to think that. Thats not required of me as an Expert Witness. But i said i prefer to say some were not very sensitive to racial issues. For instance, the person who sponsored the voter idea when a gorilla escaped from the zoo said thats a relative of michelle obamas. Then another sponsor had emailed out a car moon that looked like it was from about 1880 of cartoonish looking africanamericans running away with this sort of horrible jim crowish look they would make because obama was coming in and saying he was going to get jobs r for black men. One of the things you do to show how other legislation is related in the charleston case, i spoke about earlier. One of the sponsors of the voter i. D. After the judge had ruled that the method of election discriminated against africanamericans, he introduced the same method of election for the school board. So those are the kind of things that i did i have been told id be on the stand all day. I was hardly there. The attorney dismissed me. The judges kept asking questions. He said we dont want this witness to testify. So i enjoyed the cross side of it. It gives me a chance to say what i think at times. Well, the threejudge panel then blocked the enforcement of the law until after the 2012 election. More of the judges spes fit the importance of provision that people without i. D. S may still vote if they sign affidavits stating why they didnt have a voter i. D. The attorney general got on the stand. The person who was in charge of voting and changed completely. I they say they would not have an after the, but then they would. So the South Carolina voter i. D. Law transitioned from one of the most stringent to one of the most lean yet for those without a voter i. D. Are eligible to vote. But i tested this in South Carolina. I read the law. I heard the attorney general. I know what the law is. But just for the heck of it, just last week, we went to vote. I said i dont have a voter i. D. , but i can still vote. The law says i can with an affidavit. But what really matters as it did at the end of reconstruction, as it does today are the people at the polls can say yes and no. Either they dont know the law or they are trying to stop people. In this case, they just didnt know the law. Thats very important whether its the first or second reconstruction. Who lets people vote. Last line of defense, i think. The Supreme Court ruling in 2003 has changen the Voting Rights community. Its instructed to compare. The 2013 challenge under the Roberts Court to the first challenge to the Voting Rights act under the court in 1966. In 1966 in South Carolina plaintiffs claimed the act violated the states rights to control and implement elections. When South Carolina challenged the Voting Rights act in the states of alabama, georgia, all joined the suit. The chief justice explained this new departure of the Voting Rights act. Congress felt itself confronted by a pervasive evil. The chief justice noticed the long history of Racial Discrimination in the Voter Registration process in South Carolina directly quoting some of the most outrageous at the 1895 convention as evidence of the discriminatory purpose of literary tests. The constitutional propriety of 1965 must be judged with reference to the historical experience, which it reflects. Thus history had caught up with the south. Thus in 1966 the preem Supreme Court ruled section 5 was constitutional. In 2013 the Roberts Court ruled in Shelby County that section 4 was determined that is the trigger clause that jurisdictions that were required to submit proposed election changes was unconstitutional. The ruling disables section 5. This was in spite of a huge amount of testimony and evidence presented to congress when they renewed the Voting Rights act in 2006 and section 5. This finding eviscerated the essential preclearance of electoral changes in the covered districts and cripple d the Voting Rights act. The chief justice stated his reasoning for shelby. Our country has changed. This depressingly echoed a ruling in 1852 in the early dread scott cases that said africanamericans could not be citizens at the time, which previous decisions in missouri had a pattern of ruling for freedom, but with the new decision would be ruling for slavery. While roberts said he a acknowledged that any Racial Discrimination is too much, he considered more important that congress consider current conditions. Unlike the court that upheld the constitutions protection of individuals against Racial Discrimination is one of the principle duties of the u. S. Supreme court, the Roberts Court argued that the courts role is more to protect the rights of the states to deal with voting as they wish. The robert court felt that the problem of Racial Discrimination in election was in the past and the Voting Rights act must reflect this New Historical viewpoint. The preclearance section of the Voting Rights act in the four decades blocked more than a thousand voting laws and procedures. Now thats the equivalent of a thousand successful lawsuits that have been brought in section 2. Imagine what that cost. Justice ginsburg had one of the more apt to the notion that the voting problems were wrapped up. She said, throwing out p preclearance, when it has worg worked and continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away the umbrella in the rainstorm because youre not getting wet. She was right. It was not hardly any time that shelby was announced in the storm of efforts to disenfranchise minority voters rained down upon state previously subject to preclearance. For example, hours after the decision, officials put in voter identification law that a federal court had already previously ruled because it made it more difficult to participate in the political process on the equal basis with whites. I think thats why South Carolina changed when we were at court because of what had happened in texas. His ttorical context still matters. I like to tell my colleagues particularly before we thought of alternative facts, we were really arguing about how history is constructed. No question in my mind, all history is constructed i agree with that. I also think its the story i read to my kids. It really matters what you construct your history out of. We have to have the courts with evidence evidence and facts. Thats what i was trying to do in texas. Ill give you a little bit about what is happening there. I try to put in the long duration, the long history and put it in context. Its not about political party. As i said, it didnt matter who was in charge. Whether it was democrats, whether it was republicans, or whether, in fact, it would be marshals. One of the tragedies was in perceived times of crisis, always the party in power found ways to disfranchise or dilute the votes of minorities. So i went through all of these. I dont know if i can read it from here then. The all white primary. I put these in Historical Context. You have the interracial Populous Party of the 1890s challenging, particularly in texas, areas. They give rational for the allwhite primary is what . They say it is about voter fraud. They found it was to keep blacks. The literacy test, the same thing. They are arguing its about voter fraud, but instead, the courts find its about diluting or keeping africanamericans from voting. The poll tax, which we know about. The same thing. Thank you so much. Voter registration, it affects the governor is the next best thing to a poll tax. And the courts found and said because of voter fraud they found it was intentional to dilute the vote. Its the voter i. D. Case. What i did with this was put in what was happening. You have the Great Recession of 2008. Upsets everyone. Obama, who is elected president as a minor ity candidate for th first time, ask you have a huge turnout in registration of africanamericans and minorities for the first time. And you also becomes widespread that certain states like texas and the United States is going to become a majority state. It fits this whole pattern. Thats how i showed Senate Factor 9. One of the things in texas, for example, you could have a gun permit i. D. And vote. But you cant have a senate i. D. Or a student i. D. With pictures on it and still cannot vote. It was easy to show who had gun permits and who had the other sorts of things. We did win that case. And judge ramos finds that the voter i. D. Had a discriminatory stint is still there. Theres no practical benefit today. The legislature repeals senate bill 14, replaced it with senate bill 5. Senate bill 5 has the same very list of whats acceptable as a voter i. D. But they added in an after td. Theres a slight of hand to say the replacement act is almost the same as the other one. But we have the precedent of intent in the person voter i. D. In texas. Now the most interesting thing to me is nowhere have they found inperson voter i. D. But its a lot of it in absentee voting, like you saw in north carolina, which is not covered by the is voter i. D. Things. I find it ironic when i first went to texas to testify the doj was on the side of minority plaintiffs. When i went back, they had changed sides. Now the department of justice were defending the state of texas. The votering rights act is is crucial for voting, but i see no guarantee it is will continue into the future. The future of Voting Rights act is uncertain. When passed, you had this bipartisan support and the same has been true for all its repasses. The part of visions in congress are too intense to produce the future. Now in conclusion, my wife always told me to say that to give the audience hope. We overthrow the reconstruction of disenfranchising africanamericans something in the far past, but we are really connected to those events and the job of the historians is to put this in Historical Context and see the change over time. I had the privilege to get to know the doctor from my own town. He asked me to write the forward for his book. He was the famous ride of 1898 when they were murdered for trying to vote after the 1986 disfranchising contribution and mays father was humiliated. Dr. Mays long time president of Moorhouse College continues to from the 1930s down to the 1980s that the right to vote is the most sacred thing a man can have. His student dr. Martin luther king jr. Echoed his mentor when he equated it with the moral issue to the sin of slavery. So long as i do not firmly possess the right to vote, i do not possess myself, king demanded. As his conferences dem stratd, revolution cans go backwards. And the democratic process. Already its difficult for me to believe that in 2019 were seeing purges of voting lists, voter i. D. Laws that discriminate against poor people and elderly and disabled. As Martin Luther king jr. Challenged, i refuse to accept the idea that the man present nature makes him morally incapable of reach the up for that forever confronts him. All week were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan 3. Lectures in history, american artifacts, reel america, the civil war, oral histories, the presidency, and special event coverage on our nations history. Enjoy American History tv now and every weekend on cspan 3. Weeknight this is month, were featuring American History tv programs as a p preview of whats available every weekend on cspan 3. Tonight a look at a recent Conference Held at Purdue University remaking political history. Well focus on u. S. Politics and government from the earliest days of the american republic. American history tv airs at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan 3. American history tv live special callin program looking back at woodstock, the 1969 cultural and musical phenomenon. David farber, author of the age of great dreams, joins us to take your calls. Drugs matter, but who takes those drugs and why they have the effect they did in the 60s and 70s is something were still wrestling with as scholars to understand. The technology of drugs, we have some people in here who have thought long and hard, is imperative in an understanding of the 60s and the history. They have an incredible ability to change the direction of the given society. Call in to talk with david farber about the social movements of the 60s leading up to woodstock and its legacy. Woodstock, 50 years, sunday at 9 00 a. M. Eastern on cspans washington journal. Also live on American History tv on cspan 3. Brook thomas delivered a talk sbieted port trailers of Andrew Johnsons impeachment. The 1905 novel, the 1942 film tennessee johnson a
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.