Transcripts For CSPAN3 60th 20240705

To author clay risen, here is his book. It was 60 years ago, june 11, 1963 when jfk gave his noted civil rights address. What was happening in the country then . Guest a couple of things had happened in the weeks before hand. That summer, that spring, you had the birmingham protests led by Martin Luther king trying to integrate retail and lunch counters in birmingham, alabama. Most people have probably seen the videos of Police Officers and firemen turning hoses and dogs on children. This is in everyones mind. They are copycat protests around the country. Just that morning in alabama and test colusa tuscaloosa, the governor had made his famous stand in a schoolhouse door where he tried to prevent black applicants were black students from entering the law school at the unersity of alabama. The Deputy Attorney general went down there with federal soldier to confront George Wallace and force him to stand aside. Civil rights was not just an issue people caredbout, it was an issue on the front pages, and issue people thought could easily turn to violence. Host reading your book, i am going to use a word here and you have got to tell me if i am wrong. This was almost an accidental speech . Guest that was right. Kennedy was never big on civil rights. It was an issue he understood was there. It was something he thought would stay on a slow summer, maybe be addressed by a few small pieces of legislation. Kennedy was a Foreign Policy guy. He wanted to focus on things going on in the cold war, policies in europe and asia. He looked at civil rights as a distraction. It was his brother, bobby kennedy, and the people around him, as well as lots of republicans and democrats in congress, who were pushing him to do something more. It was only the last minute kennedy said, well, in response to everything going on, weve got to do not just legislation but i am going to have to give a National Address to talk about this issue. Host robert drew a documentary anchor at that time was given access to the oval office as the president was talking with his brother, the attorney general, about whether and when to do this speech. We have video from that meeting. Here it is. [video clip] [indiscernible] i did not think so. It depends on whether we have something for the university. I did not think we would at this point. I think he talk about education. Do it for 15 minutes, would alleviate a lot of problems. I suppose he could do it. I think it would take a way a lot of problems. Hopeful to legislate. [indiscernible] you are going to come across reasonable and understanding. [indiscernible] i think if, we say that we will have difficulty and describe making this kind of effort at the federal level and knee grows negros understand the responsibility. That is not going to be september, october, november. Getting direction on having this for the president. [indiscernible] this is something to work with. Host that was courtesy of drew associates. Robert drew was a documentary filmmaker. That is how we got access to that. Clay, how much politics went into the decision of this speech to push this issue . Guest immense politics. So much of the pressure to do Something Big on civil rights came from the republicans. Back then, there was a pretty good split between conservative republicans who tended to align with the segregationist democrats. With the liberal republicans, and even many moderate republicans who saw civil rights as a legacy issue for the party. They were the party of lincoln, the party of reconstruction amendments. They were the party that still claimed a large part of the black electorate, especially outside of the south. They were pressing all through 1963 four civil rights legislation as a way to pressure kennedy and hopefully get a leg up on it. Kennedy was responding not just to what was going on in the country, but also to this pressure and the need to essentially get a leg up in reverse on the republicans. Host we want to hear your comments as we talk about jfks civil rights speech june 11, 1963. It is the 60th anniversary. Our, guest is clay risen who is the author of this book. 202 7488000 for those of you who live in the central and eastern time zones. 202 7488001 if you live in mountain and pacific time zones. You can send a text if you cannot get through and want to talk about this history and movement, 202 7488003. Please include your first name and city if you would. Mr. Risen, was this the first major first time that jfk addressed this issue in a major way . Guest it was. He had talked about civil rights in some of his speeches before, but this was not something he prioritized. It was something he was sensitive about. A lot of democrats, certainly southern democrats, which he considered an important part of the democratic coalition, but even some northern democrats were wary about going too far on civil rights. A lot of the things that ended up not being in the bill, housing, education, desegregation, were not southern issues. They were national issues. There was real concerned about going too far from the national democrats. Kennedy was sitting there throughout his administration trying to weave between the urgency to do something and the fear of doing too much. Isas not something he prioritized in the first place. E result was that he seially without planning on it, waited until the issue forced his hand. Host you write in your book that he walked into the oval Office Without a complete speech. Guest that is right. They had not prepared the speech. As you saw in the film, they were still debating when to do the speech, how to do the speech. Kennedy was unhappy with the drafts they gave him and ultimately, he weaned a lot of that speech. It is not his best speech in terms of rhetoric. Kennedy was a great speaker when prepared. This time, it was not his issue. It was not something he had given a normas amounts of thought to enormous. Amounts of from the topic. The important thing is the content. That is why the speech is so historic. The speech is still a pretty good speech. What he says in content is dramatic. He essentially says, from now on the force of the federal government is going to be behind civil rights legislation. Up until then for decades, it had been an open question. Was the federal government and ally of the Civil Rights Movement . It is run in large part by southern democrats. Was the federal government going to get behind the equal rights of people of color in the United States . With this speech, kennedy changed that completely and said, from now on, we will. Host lets watch a little of that speech from june 11, 1963. [video clip] we are confronted primarily by a moral issue. Half of the question is whether all americans ought to be supported, equal rights and equal opportunities. Whether we are going to treat our federal fellow americans as we want to be treated. If an american because his skin is dark cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best Public School available, if you cannot vote for the public official to represent him. If he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, who among us will be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place . Who among us would then be content with the council of patients and delay . 100 years of delays have passed since president lincoln freed the slaves, yet their grandsons are not fully freed. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. This nation, for all its hopes and all of its will not be bully free until all of its citizens are free. Host clay risen, 8 00 p. M. On june 11, 1963, about 15 minutes in length. Did all three carry it and what was the reaction . Guest the reaction was for right forthright. Back then, everyone watched the news when they tuned in when there was something to watch. You cannot watch it online. This was where you saw it. The country was enthused. This was a call to arms by the president. I would not say the southern democrats were particularly happy, but this was a statement, a flag in the ground. At the same time, a lot of people on the left, liberal democrats and republicans and many in the Civil Rights Movement heard his words and wanted to see the actual work. They wanted to see the legislation and what would happen. Until then, kennedy had paid lip service to civil rights. This was an adamant statement. They wanted to see actual action. Host , two months after this the march on washington. Three months after that, the death of jfk. Guest yeah, this was one of those runs a month. A pretty short time in American History changed and it is hard to imagine all of those events happening so quickly one after the other. I think part of what made the Civil Rights Act so successful was the fact it came amid so much change, so much hope and tragedy. All of that gave energy to this sort of magnum opus bill. Host when you look back at the Eisenhower Administration and little rock and brown, does the battle for civil rights start even earlier then john f. Kennedy and lbj . Guest the battle for civil rights has been going on a long time. It was not always in the National Focus in the sense of outside the south and the sense of being in the minds of many white americans. Certainly, if you were a politically aware black person or a liberal activist, this was an issue long and coming and people had fought over their employment during the administration during world war ii. They fought for it during the run up during the montgomery bus boycott. These are episodes we think of happening, in one time but they had president. The brown versus board of education decision in 1954 had been in the works for years. Earl warren was the chief justice oversaw the decision. It had come in under his predecessor. There had been concern under fred benson, his predecessor, there would have been a much different decision. There is all this history. You had mentioned eisenhower, there were multiple small pieces of small legislation under eisenhower. By the time kennedy got it, there was both a feeling civil rights had been around as an issue for a long time and also a certain wariness on all sides. Was this an issue that was ever going to be solved . It wasnt going to be one of those contractile problems politicians flopped off and try to Pay Lip Service to and try to pass a small piece of incremental adulation, but never do anything about. Host remind us, what was the bill introduced in congress after the speech . When, and what was the role of Everett Dirksen . Guest the bill came a few weeks after kennedys speech. It focused on the issue that had been raised by Martin Luther king in the birmingham protes, which was equal access to public facilities. Here, we mean retail stores, lunch counters, public accommodations. This was an issue that focused directly on the jim crow south. There were other items in the bill. The bill expanded greatly. One of the things that made that happen was that it had early support from Everett Dirksen, the Senate Minority leader. He was a airily conservative republican from illinois. He had been an ally, a strong ally of joe mccarthy in the 1950s. He was someone who felt civil rights was certainly a party issue, something the republicans had to stand by. I think dirksen had a moral Energy Behind him. He often play politics with the bill. People from the democrats and other republicans did not know exactly where he was all the time. In the end, it was Everett Dirksen who makes her the bill had strong support from the very beginning among republicans and carried through up through the historic filibuster the next year. Host before we move on, lets take calls from our audience and hear from terry in tennessee. You are on with author and historian clay risen. Go ahead, terry. Caller yes. In 1921, there was the black wall street massacre. You showed a picture of the government and white people, i mean black people in the school. What about the hp you schools who only want like kids in the school today . Is that the same thing . Host do you have anything you would like to say to that . What was happening at the hbcus . Guest i should say at the front, the hbcus do allow white people to attend. I know friends of mine have gone to howard, white friends of mine have attended white have attended Howard University. There are schools by their history and i would say by their appeal, they tend to attract black students. During segregation, these were schools that only black people could go to. It was not that white people could not go there, it was that by the culture of the south at the time, it was culturally forbidden. It was not illegal. I think that is an important distinction. So much of what we think about when we talk about jim crow, these were laws. A lot of it was the absence of laws, it was a culture that existed that allowed people, private individuals to bar black people from eating at a restaurant or shopping at their store. It was not in most cases a law that prevented that. That is why this bill was so important. It did not overturn laws, it created new laws that banned, that affected private action. Back to your question as far as hbcus, they were important see the beds for the Civil Rights Movement. When we think about Howard University back then, so many young activists who came out of Howard University went into the Civil Rights Movement right down to mississippi and alabama. I think the Civil Rights Movement would have looked very different had it not been for the strength of the hbcus at the time. Host philip, baltimore, good morning to you. Caller i was a child during this time. I remember what it was like, the apartheid in america. I remember what it was like in the Greater School attacked and being told African Americans done nothingor history. I remember the kennedy speech. E watch on washington. Oing to to see where america was now wao ere america is w, it is a lot different. Imagine if your family were a veteran. You come home and you cannot go to college. You cannot buy a house. Kennedy was right about the different america. George wallace standing in the door, this is totally crazy. Like a junior desantis. It is good. To change america still need to change. America had apartheid. Just to see the difference now. I hope American People are for it. I see the reaction. Desantis is like a baby george waller. Host what are you doing in baltimore . Caller i am getting ready to open a business. Host mr. Risen . Guest i think he is absolutely right. We have so many racial problems today. It is easy for people to say nothing has changed. You look at what happened in 1963. Fire hoses, dogs on children, George Wallace staing in the schoolhouse door to try to prevent qualified, brilliant, black students from attending a public university. It is night and day. So much of it was because of the Civil Rights Act, not only because of the specifics of the act, but the moral position that all of washington, both congress and the white house and a bunch of the Supreme Court took in backing this legislation, saying from now on, the federal government is behind the equality of the races. We can debate whether the bill went far enough, whether anything went far enough. The amount of change that happened because of it is astounding. Host clay risen, the night of that speech, june 11, 1963, there was also an assassination. Guest that is right. That evening, matt, grabbers the director of the mississippi chapter of the naacp was coming home. He had been working on his own Civil Rights Activism, trying to pick up from the energy from birmingham and recreate it in jackson. As he was carrying a box of shirts into his front door, a hidi in bushes, a white racist, shot evers right as was going through the door. His wife heard thet, ce out, sawer husband dying on ont steps. That night, there was almost violence in jackson. Everest was a very popular figure. He was not as wellknown as king, but in mississippi, he was well respected and someone in the future might have become a National Leader of the naacp. It was only because of the federal intervention, specifically john door, an assistant attorney general who worked in the civil rights division, he happened to be there. He helped calm the people that were out in the streets. The next day, this was on national television. As tragic as it was and horrible as it was, it helped put an exclamation point on what kennedy was saying. This was not just a legal issue. This was a emotional issue. This was an issue of life or death. Host you write in your book that mrs. Evers was watching the speech at home when, while waiting for her husband. Guest that is right. You think about moments where the entire country is on the same page, so to speak. That is a great example of it. Host ralph in men what, ralph in new york. You are on with clay risen. We are talking about the 60th anniversary of john f. Kennedys civil rights speech. Caller i am a you wa worker from upstate. When i was in grade school, we were insulated from what was going on in the south. The reason i learned about the Civil Rights Movement, through my union, the uaw, taught me that. The interesting point of all of this was a member of the house, his name is william. He was a congressman in the house. He added a poison pill during the closing day. He added gender in order to defeat the bill. It backfired on him. That was a lot of people, a lot of people do not know the extra category was added to defeat it. The credit goes to president Lincoln Johnson that got this bill passed. 1970 vote cloture in the senate. If kennedy was still president , i do not think this bill would have passed. I want to listen to your host and what he think about that. Guest first of all, the uaw was absolutely critical in this bill. Walter reuther was the president of the uaw. He is probably the most influential union leader in the country, very progressive. Early on, he had been an ally of Martin Luther king, of kennedy and johnson. He pushed not just for political support, but mass support. Uaw came out in strength, not just to events like the march on washington, but came to lobby politicians. Locals went to their representatives offices. They were very wellinformed. They knew exactly what they wanted. Reuther believed in integrated workplaces. He believed this was the future of the american workforce, integrated, equal between the races in the workforce. He also felt it was a moral issue. Union strong, this was very important. To the question, you referred to the amendment regarding sex. This is an important point, it changed the entire bill. The representative you referred to was howard smith from virginia. He is a curious figure. On the one hand, it was a poison pill. There were a number of categories that the Civil Rights Act was supposed to apply to. Race, obviously, but also political ideology, national origin, religion, these kinds of things. Smith said we need to add sex. Here is not coming from purely a cynical point of view. Smith had a long relationship with what we would call then the womens rights movement, we call them feminists today. He was a very close friend with ellen pollack, the head of the womens party. He had been a strong supporter of the people rights amendment, which had been equal rights amendment, smith with a was a strong advocate of it. A lot of that energy came from this idea that, if we pass civil rights legislation, it is going to help black men. White women women, white women, will be left behind. We need to push for womens rights as well to make sure the very least they are all moving in tandem. This was smiths points of view. Why did smith introduce this amendment . It is complicated, it is both. I think he really thought this was a way to embarrass supporters of the bill, create tension among supporters, maybe kill the bill. If the bill passes, it will at least create a level Playing Field for women, or help promote a level Playing Field. That is going to be Something Else i want. It ended up, depends on how you read what he was doing, it either backfired or worked perfectly. So many of the advances made in the workplace by women was rooted in this change, this revision to sex and the Civil Rights Act. To your point of kennedy and johnson, it is impossible to say. I do think that, had kennedy been around, had he not been assassinated, the bill probably would have looked different and not have been as expansive as it was. I think johnson did an amazing job and taking not just his own beliefs and the need for civil rights legislation, but also using kennedys assassination and essentially transitioning, trance modifying the meeting of that into maate to pass an expansive civirits act. His speech after kennedy asssination to join a special coress where this was the topic of conversation, where he said we must continue, is next to the speech we are discussing, the june 11 speech by kennedy. Is the other really important address during the peer bank period. Host lets hear a little bit of this speech by president johnson late november 1963. [video clip] we must not approach the observance of this law in a vengeful spirit. This purpose is not to punish. This purpose is not to divide but in divisions. Divisions which have lasted all too long. This purchase purpose is national, not regional. This Civil Rights Act is a challenge to all of us to go to work in our communities and states, in our homes and hearts, to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our 11 country beloved country. I urge every public official, every religious leader, every business and professional man, every working man, every housewife, i urge every american to join in this effort to bring justice and hope to all our people and to bring peace to our land. Host clay risen, that obviously was july of 1964 at the signing, the bill signing. What happened between the bill introduction, june, and the bill signing a year later . How did the bill change . Guest one of the things remarkable about this bill, normally legislation gets introduced and amended and watered down. Often, the vision there in the bill, you hope the basic idea remains and Everything Else is compromised. With the Civil Rights Act, it actually strengthened. There were changes, but not a lot, not significant changes. Those changes that did exist were made to ultimately improve the bill. It was a democratic bill with the support of the administration. One of the things the managers of the bill through the house and into the senate, one thing they made sure to keep going was bipartisan support. Not just the rank and file support, but bringing in republican legislators to negotiate and help write amendments to the bill. Remember, this was not necessarily a fight between immigrants and republicans. This was a fight between liberal members and moderate members of the house and senate on both sides, and conservatives, particularly southern democrats were adamantly opposed to anything in this bill. Every word in this bill, they wanted to destroy. Up until then, they had been effective walking things we think should be nobrainers. Antilynching legislation, they had whittled that down. Civil rights acts passed in the 1950s were nubs when they were introduced. That is what they were up against going into 1964. That is what supporters on both sides of the aisle were up against. One of the exciting things about the story is how until the very end, it was not clear the bill was going to pass. Host k in michigan. Thanks for holding. You are on with author clay risen, talking about the Civil Rights Act in 1963. Caller thanks for taking my call. This is one of the reasons i subscribe to the times. They have such excellent coverage and research beyond everything they put on in print. Much of what i wanted to ask was already answered. The question of the new york caller. I noticed johnson was not in on, when they were preparing for the speech in discussing what they would speak, what kennedy would address. He was not there, johnson. Was he left out of all of these relations . I mean, all of these important meetings . Host thank you. Lets get an answer from clay risen. Guest that is perceptive of you. He was not included in a lot of those conversations. Johnson was never a close ally of john kennedy. They were rivals going into the 1960 election and into the primary. It was kennedys decision to bring johnson on as a way to bring in ensure up support in the south. It was not because he thought johnson was a close friend or someone he wanted to work closely with. Bobby kennedy hated johnson. They really disliked each other. A lot of people around kennedy thought johnson was uncouth, a little too abrasive. Going into this speech, the june 11 speech, he was not consulted. He had pretty strong ideas of what should be in the civil rights bill. He wanted a much bigger bill. The bill that ultimately passed was closer to what johnson had originally called for in the conversations he did have with kennedy then what kennedy wanted to pass. At the same time, johnson was always of the believe that as much as these things in the Civil Rights Act needed to happen, there needed to be a ban on employment discrimination, there needed to be a ban on discrimination in lunch counters and commercial venues, his emphasis was Voting Rights. As soon as the Civil Rights Act past, he started working on the Voting Rights act. That passed a year later. That was his goal. Host how involved was john kennedy in the march on washington in august, two months after this speech . Guest kennedy was not really involved at all. He was worried. A lot of people in washington, a lot of white leaders, were worried about what would happen. They had seen birmingham, which a lot of people had misconstrued to be at least partially the result of Martin Luther kings activism, the violence was his fault. They worried about what would happen. There were federal troops stationed around washington ready to come in if there was a riot. We know that is not what happened. Kennedy kept his distance. He did not want to be involved in something that might devolve into violence. He did not meet with Martin Luther king and he did meet with Martin Luther king and other leaders in the time before the march. Notably, one of the things he brought king to tell him wasn no uncertain terms, we are watching you. The i is watching you. We think there are communists adsing you and you better take care of that. King, as much as king wanteto influence what was going on in the whe house, federal polic kennedy was always wy of king. He was always unsure either he was someone he should get close to. Host next call for clay risen comes from margaret in culpeper, virginia. Caller good morning, great conversation. In respect to the civil rights law, Civil Rights Activists for a better term, one need array said the Civil Rights Act was to necessarily give black americans the right to do things. Those rights were already there per the initial constitution. It was more or less a discrimination thing, where it advised that white americans who were perpetrating these heinous acts, they were telling them this is illegal. You cannot do that. You brought up a great example when you said the antilynching bill. Always looked at civil rights as civil rights, yes, but it is the rights we already should have had. The laws put in place were to advise white americans who were preventing blacks from exercising these rights that this was a legal. Was there any perspective given like that during this time . Host thank you. Guest that is an important point. It is one that was an undercurrent of the legislation. As i said earlier, so much of what we think of was jim crow, a lot of it was not legislation. It was not that there was a law preventing black people from eating at lunch counters in the south, it was that there was no law preventing white people from discriminating against black people eating at a lunch counter. The governments and states and towns and cities in the south simply said, we are going to look the other way. We are not going to protect the rights of black people to do these things. Voting rights is a different thing, there were laws that discriminated against black people trying to exercise their right to vote. So much of what the caller pointed out his right. This legislation was to secure the civil rights that already existed. I think one of the things that carmichael to ray pointed out was something that probably should have been emphasized more clearly in the rhetoric around the Civil Rights Act, that this is this was not giving rights to anybody. This was protecting rights that existed. That is something that often got lost. Host when he wrote this book, when it came out in 2014, were you with the New York Times or are you still with the New York Times . Guest i was an editor back then, i am now a reporter. Host william, tucson, good morning. We are listening, go ahead. Caller this is a good conversation, i have enjoyed this. There is always a backside of this. The intent is, by the media to pick up on this and run with this and i hope you sell books. I am not trying to stop that. The fact of the matter is, people get riled up about this. I went through these times. I saw on tv, i do not know the fellow up in the north that said he was shielded from it and never look at the tv because i saw it on blackandwhite tv every night in front of the dinner room table. You know, i am going to quote one of my friends. His name is morgan freeman. He says the best way for us to move forward on racism and these racial inequities is to stop talking about them. Please, media, stop talking about this. You are killing america. Thank you. Host any response to that caller . Guest my First Response would be that this is a work of history and it is an important point in our history. Whatever you think about the way that we talk about race today, we need to know this history. I would also take issue with the idea that we should not talk about race. It is relatively easy to say that depending on what your background is, and depending on what your class background is, your race background is, a lot of people cannot avoid talking about this. It is not an issue People Choose to take up. It is an issue that is already there, it was always already there. We are not going to have this conversation now, but i would love to ideally, the caller and i would talk this out. What is the right way to talk about it . How do you find a way to be constructive . I agree that constructive conversation is better than people getting up on high horses and attacking each other on twitter or whatever and not getting anywhere. Host you mentioned the uaw and its activity during this period. A lot of the conversation we are having today is about corporations and their political activity. What about in 1963 . Was the Waldorf Company involved in politics, etc. . Guest generally speaking, no. There was not much involvement from the corporate world. The lobbying world was different at the time. One of the stories i try to relate in the bill was the evolution of lobbying, especially on the social side, nonprofits, unions,. Churches the Civil Rights Act was watershed for them in terms of organizing political activism at a federal level. A lot of the things we see happening at that time are familiar to us because that is how it works today, but it was new to a lot of those groups. On the corporate side, there was not much going on. Corporations were more concerned with their bread and butter issues, taxes, regulations. Some were worried about whether the bill would open the door to affirmative action. Affirmative action was already an idea out there. It is not in the bill. There are hints of it that did open the door. There was some concern there. Most companies did not want to get involved in an issue that was so morally charged. They did not have the lobbying position to do that. It was very different from today. Host philip, mississippi, thanks for holding. Go ahead with your question or comment. Caller thank you. I was born in alexandria, before that i was in florida. My whole pursuit spiritually and intellectually has been coming up with a solution toward how we can create more positive of race relations. I wrote a book, it is run in my shoes which identifies a black person in america trying to understand how race can affect progress in a persons individual pursuit. All of that to say, we have got a movement now trying to take us even further in a divisive way, trying not to highlight black history, afroAmerican History when afro American History is simply American History. We helped forge the development of this country, economics system. Yet, there are people who still do not understand it. Not only was i trying to do something intellectually, but i think nothing going to happen in this country unless it goes through a spiritual cleansing. Then, i am hoping to utilize sports as a meeting to bring people together naturally. Rhetoric sometimes offend so many people they cannot get past first base, second base in understanding and analyzing how an individual going through what black people had been through as white people have could go through, would easily understand what it is black people are generally now. Host ok. The name of your book, run in my shoes, is that correct . Caller yes. Host it is available on amazon . Caller i have four editions. I keep upgrading it. Host tell us a little bit about yourself professionally. What do you do besides write books . Caller ok. I was born in alexandria, integrated with the safe stevens after school. I became an educator, although a lot of people thought i was going to become a preacher or like my dad, who worked in the funeral industry. Education, mentoring, coaching, i have dedicated my entire life to try and steer the Younger Generation in a more positive direction. Host thank you. Philip, run in my shoes is the name of his books in case you want to look it up on amazon. Clay, your reaction to that call . Guest it reminds me why i wrote that book. I grew up in nashville in the 1980s and 1990s. I was never exposed to any history of civil rights. I had no idea that nashville itself played a Important Role in the Civil Rights Movement. I understand things have changed a little bit in tennessee now, there is more awareness. I did not know any of that growing up. A lot of what i wanted to do with the book was take my understanding of American History and personally try to understand how that changed when i looked at it from the perspective of civil rights history. As philip said, black history is American History. For me, the book is as much a history book i hope people will read and learn from as much as it was the writing of it was a personal journey for me. Host there was a College Student in tennessee during this period named john lewis. Does he play a role in your book . Guest he does, a small role. He was a keynote, one of the keynote speakers at the march on washington. One of the fiery leaders of the nonviolent coordinating committee, a group of mostly College Students or young people in the Civil Rights Movement. He was an important voice and some of those conversations on the side of the Civil Rights Movement, not so much in congress or the white house. In the Civil Rights Movement, trying to figure out what do we want out of this legislation . Host mike in leland, mississippi. Good morning. Caller i want to say it is a shame that the Civil Rights Act took us a long way. It is a shame after 100 years we have had we have gotten that far. You gave thousands of to immigrants and have not given black people and inch. After we tried to rebuild this country, the American Revolution was fueled by tobacco. This would be no country if the slaves did not fuel it. We built america and europe and basically the world. Africanamerican should basically have live in gold. Host . Thank you. Was there talk about reparations in this act . Guest not so much in congress and the white house, but certainly in the Civil Rights Movement. Whitney young had a plan to do a Marshall Plan for black america, which when you read the text, it is a form of reparations, the way he talked about the need to spend the kind of money we did to rebuild europe, to rebuild black america or black america to give black america what it deserved. The bill itself had none of that. A lot of its most famous progressive, most adamant supporters in and out of federal government saw it as a first step. Johnson was one of them. Johnson believes we need to do the Civil Rights Act and we need to do the Voting Rights act. After that, we need to bring the benefits of the federal government, the new deal and all of the programs that he created to black americans. He did not use the kinds of terms we do today about reparations, but that was a lot of this view. It shaped his belief system that we as a country, we as the federal government, oh it to black america to bring them these benefits because we put them down, suppressed them for so long. Host mary is in louisiana. Good morning. Caller good morning. Host we are listening. Caller , oh ok. I am 77 years old. I wish you would give me time to tell mr. Clay about, a lot of stuff about slavery is not being told. Ok. I am a democrat from the time i was 18 up to 2008. I started hearing things i aint ever heard before. I like to seek the truth. I keep a library card. Ok. I went to the library and i started checking out books, went all the way back tonight 1619. Host we are running out of time. I would love to hear this long history, but what do you remember about jfks speech in the passage of the civil rights bill in 1964 . Caller the civil rights bill was good. That was good. Like i said, there is a lot about slavery not being told. Did you cut me off . Host im going to have to. I apologize, we are tight on time. Clay risen, who was lbjs president johnsons strongest opponent in congress and his strongest advocate for the passage of this bill . Guest the answer on the opponent site is easy, it was richard russell. Host democrat georgia senator. Guest that is right, and johnsons mentor. The white man of the southern democrats, essentially the leader. Johnson told him i am going to pass this bill. Russell said you are going to have to roll over me to do it. He said that is exactly what i am going to do. Russell ran filibuster, the effort to block the bill. In the end, russell never came around but understood the bill was going to happen. I will give him credit. He made sure through whatever power he had that the bill was accepted peacefully in the south. He was both the opponent and in an odd way, something of an ally. You asked who was his greatest ally in congress . There are so many. Hubert humphrey was essentially russells opponent in the senate. Humphrey ran the bill in the senate during the filibuster and it was one of the reasons why johnson ended up choosing humphreys as his running mate. He was impressed with humphreys performance. Mike mansfield was the Senate Majority leader. He did an amazing job organizing the house, the senate, making sure it was fair. Everett dirksen, not someone anyone expected to become such an adamant supporter of the bill. Dirksen was the guy that brought the republicans, particular midwest republicans, he was the guy that brought them around. When you look at the margins of how the bill passed, the 71 senators who ended up supporting it, that margin would have been tighter if not for Everett Dirksen. Host building the first Senate Building is named after richard russell, the Russell Senate office building. Our guest for the past hour has been clay risen, the bill of the century, the epic battle for the Civil Rights Act is the name of his