Transcripts For CSPAN3 Jeremi Suri Civil War By Other Means 20221119

Leaving. I wrote it down wrong and my notes. Jeremy is has written a remarkable. I will endorse it up front. Thats all i need to say here. He graduated with his earned his ph. D. At yale a number of years ago, came to madison, taught here in the History Department for ten years. And then im sorry to say, he was lured away to the university of texas and the lbj school of Public Affairs in austin, texas. The he he has authored or edited 11 books in all this. So this is the 11th. Including more recent are shortly a short time book called the impossible. Liberty surest guardians and a book about henry kissinger. Hes a hes written for the new york times, the washington wall street journal and a number of. Hes often quoted or appears is offered an invitation to comment on various news programs and radio and television. And he hosts a podcast called is democracy. Each week. As i said at the beginning, this is an important book and a remarkable book. It makes the point that civil war did not end with the surrender of libya, that but was continued in a very real respect respects by other during the ensuing 20 years. He makes point that frames this is being part of a long and unfinished fight for democracy. Thats the subtitle of the book. And from what ive seen of the book, its an accurate framing. And finally, he makes the point the recurring problems around inclusion and exclusion with voting and the meaning of representation who may vote are recurring in our time as a continuous of the same kinds of issues. We focused in the period hes writing about and indeed had prior to that time as well. So with that, please welcome. Oh, good afternoon. Its such a joy be here. I see so many friends in the audience and so many people who i know will have difficult questions. I see you, jim kurtz. Im so happy to be here. I want to thank fred, who has been among many of you, a such a longtime friend. And i had the great joy of coming out to austin last spring. I often come out because our daughter, a sophomore here, and fred is part of this group called bull moose club. And we had a wonderful dinner at the madison club that was just terrific. And so thank you, fred, for being such a good friend. I do want to acknowledge my wife and my daughter, allison alter. Allison. Allison still has a real job. I dont have a real job. I get to and teach. Its a hard job. But she has a real job. Shes the mayo tem in austin, texas and yeah, and natalie is a sophomore here at uw and were happy that shes back in madison. Im getting some feedback. Yeah. Okay. So am. Im delighted to have the chance to talk to all of you. And i want to explain, discuss my journey to this book a little bit. And then i want us to i want to talk about the book a little bit and then i want there to be plenty of time. Q a and discussion and then well leave at about 10 p. M. Tonight. How does that sound. How are we doing on sound . Are we okay . Were okay. All right. Good. So, as many of you know, im a child of and i came of age believing as the child of immigrants would, that our country was imperfect. I was well aware of that growing up in new york city in the 1980s, but i believed and i still believe that our country is what lincoln called the last hope on earth. I still believe that. But the last 6 to 10 years have shaken that belief. I think its shaken the beliefs of many of us. How many people have been shaken the last 6 to 10 years . Everyone you know, every room i talk to, thats what people every hand goes up. You see, were not divided. We all agree. We agree. These years have reoriented me. These 6 to 10 years. Theyve reoriented how i see the world. As a historian as a scholar, as a teacher, as a father, as a citizen i worry as i didnt before about the world. Were leaving to natalie and zachary and others. My new books effort to chronicle this issue to understand where it has come from. Its not an explainer version of whats happened the last 6 to 10 years. Its not a polemic. Its not designed to be yet one more polemical story. We have enough and we have journalists who are doing a great job of bringing salacious, sensationalist news to us every moment of the day. We dont need more of that. My books and effort to and my own effort to understand what roots of these difficulties. And as a historian it wont surprise you that the roots i think are very deep. They arent about one election. They about one man. They arent about even our moment. You see what historians can offer us. If we can offer anything, is that there are deep roots in the ground and they dont always bloom in our garden. We dont always see the flowering of those roots. But those roots are still there. And at certain moments, if theyre not dug up, they do invade our garden. And to understand where roots have come from, to understand is low below the surface that is influencing all of us. To switch metaphors, if i might. My book is an effort to diagnose the cancerous tumors that began to grow in our democracy about 100 years ago or so. Cancerous tumors that have metastasized metastasized in recent because of the conditions of the few years and because of the misbehavior. Certain people over the last years. But the illness the disease was already there. It wasnt seen. You can act in healthy and still have a disease deep within. I want to diagnose where that disease came from. I want us to understand what the sources of this are and what my book is about. My book talks about not what we should do, but how we can better diagnose the problem to be better prepared to remove the cancers in our system. And thats my plea at the end of the book, my plea to all of you today for why this matters. We cant fix what ails us if we know what it is, if dont know where the disease comes from, if we dont have an accurate pathology and the history of democracy is, the pathology of democracy by those who look at how the body has developed over time. And thats what my book does. Three pathologies in particular. There are others in the book, but three, i want to talk today. One is the pathology of war. As many of you know, where a society thats been almost continuously war. And there are many reasons why thats the case. Fortunately, madison has a wonderful Veterans Museum and i see dan checchi, the Veterans Museum here, a museum which i think chronicles at least wisconsin in war decade after decade. And correct me if im wrong, dan, every period is covered because every period includes war, right . So war is one of our pathologies. How is war destroyed treated our democracy . Leadership is another pathology. Why have we had such a mix group of leaders . What is that meant in our society . Fred referred to this already and then of course, the distortion of our democracy, the ways in which our democracy has developed, ways that dont meet anyones textbook of what a democracy would look like for each of these three areas for war leadership and democracy. My book takes us back to the civil war because i think the civil war is an important moment. The end of the civil war, the two decades thereafter, which are heart of my book, understood why war becomes so present in our why our leadership and why our democracy distorted. Those are current problems that have historical origins. Those current problems that go back to that moment. And thats why i wrote this book, to understand that better. And thats how we fix problems by going back, understand where they came from and trying to eliminate the initial conditions or back to my gardening to remove the roots from the ground and not just focus on what were seeing above the ground all the time. So let me start with war. You cant talk about American History without discussing war. Its so ever present, though. Theres people who like to talk about our history without talking about war. Then theyre not doing history. The civil war ended in april 1865. As many of you know, with this wonderful moment when the two sides come together and youve all seen images of this if we were in a classroom, id put up the powerpoint, the lovely paintings of Ulysses Grant and robert e lee at Appomattox Court house. The two men sitting in very stately civil eyes, demeanor, you would think they had just had graduate seminar sign, signing, signing. What is to be a truce to the war and. Most textbooks say thats the end of the civil war. In fact, it wasnt. Wars dont end when the paper is signed. Wars linger. So one of the points, carl von clausewitz made in the 19th century war is politics. The means and the politics dont go away simply because the belligerents have left the battlefield. This is something americans forget. We think we mobilize for war, win wars and home. Thats not it works. Were still in a certain way fighting the vietnam war, arent we . Were still dealing with the iraq war long after leaving iraq. Robert e lee says to grant and appomattox. And this is in grants memoir which by the way is still the best memoir written by any president in American History. I encourage you all to read grants memoir. And one of the reasons its the best memoir, he doesnt talk about the presidency off. He just talks about his time during the civil war. He recounts that lee said to him and are grants words, recounting lee that, quote, the south is a very big country and might have won on the battlefield. But if you want to really win this war, you to march over the south three or four times before the war, entirely end. What lee was saying was that simply because they were laying down their arms, it didnt mean the struggle was over. Lee is often depicted giving up. Its not true. He sees himself. The war moving to another phase. Hes no hero. Hes no graduate to when i say that south of the masondixon line but im here i can see that hes no hero. The soldiers return home in some cases. In some cases they dont. They dont give up. They dont give up. The war didnt end at appomattox. One of the things i did for this book was do research on those who decided not to surrender. And there actually a lot of them, 50,000, 50,000 confederates go to more go to brazil. Most people dont know that. One of my good friends, who has one of the most popular textbooks said, oh, my gosh, i have to rewrite my textbook because of your book. I was like, yes. These men i chronicle some of them, they dont give up. They see the war moving to a new phase. Ill give you some of their names. You havent heard of them . Joseph shelby. Joseph shelby was from missouri. He was a commander of famous commander of confederate forces, a vicious commander, not well known. The north very well regarded in south. How do i know this . Because my research relied about about a hundred heroic books about him still written to this day. And shelby took his forces down to mexico to join the government of emperor, who was installed emperor by Louis Napoleon in mexico joined mexico and emperor maximilians army with the intention, the explicit intention of fighting to protect the emperor in mexico. So hes a royalist with the intention of returning to the United States with his slaves. Another gentleman John Bankhead magruder. Anyone . John bankhead with magruder, youve got to be worried, right . John bankhead was from texas, though he had spent much of his life in new york, believe it or not. New york had a lot of sympathizers and magruder took his forces south. Well. He played a major role, shelby. And not only People Living on maximilians army, but also settling a new area of mexico called carlotta, named for the emperors. Carlotta. Amounts prize. You had plantations that looked like virginia, and they brought their slaves. There was no slavery. Mexico. So magruder came up with this great idea. We give them 20 year labor contracts are africanamericans, and they can get paid at the end of the 20 years. Im technically not slavery. Technically not slavery. Matthew fontaine, maury is someone you should have heard of. You havent he had a statue on richmonds way three years ago . Matthew Fontaine Maury was one of those prominent job. Anyone studying geography at uw in the mid19th century after 1848. Would have known him, would have known who he was. He was the confederate ambassador to england. He never came back initially after the war. He went straight to mexico. He was the chief promoter and recruiter for american citizens. Come down to mexico after the war. After that, he came back to the United States and founded Virginia Tech university, was offered the presidency of the university of virginia. Didnt take it. And he, by the way, he wanted live close to robert e lee intentionally. Thats why Virginia Tech is where Virginia Tech is. Robert healy was at washington and lee at that or i guess it was washington later named washington and lee university. The final the one i want to spend a little more time on Alexander Watkins, terrell judge in houston becomes general joins maximilian, becomes a spy spying grant and sherman and sheridan for the Mexican Government that is the definition of treason. Not just secession but spy for a foreign army is the definition of treason. After maximilian is defeated by Benito Juarez and the republicans who were supported by lincoln before lincolns death, after maximilian defeated. And in the book we have the famous photo from goya of the assassination, the killing of maximilian. After that. Tyrrell and morey and magruder and shelby and almost all 50,000 of these horrible people who refuse to surrender. Ladies and gentlemen they came back to the United States and they ran for and got elected to office. There was a statue for magruder in, galveston, until a few years ago. Maury was at the center of way Alexander Watkins terrell, who i mentioned, came back to texas, was elected to the state legislature, became leader of the Democratic Party in texas. He wrote the legislation to create the university of texas, my he wrote the voting laws in texas who. Do you think didnt get the vote when he wrote those laws he wrote those laws they were called the terrell election laws until the Voting Rights act of 1965. He also created the first primary in texas, which, if you know texas history, called the white primary because was the Democratic Partys primary governor for senators, etc. , and the party was the only party in texas. And the democratic did not allow nonwhites to vote in this primary. That only changed. In 1944, that only in 1944 with the Supreme Court decision. Smith versus all right, until that until that period there was no voting for nonwhites in primaries in texas. Can you believe that . Beto orourke and Governor Abbott recently had a debate and this actually came up indirectly there, abbott said. Weve always allowed for free voting in this state. And betto looked at him, said, where do i begin to tell you you are wrong . What worries me is how many people watching that debate dont know this history. Why is it to teach history . Ladies and gentlemen . Because it becomes significant to our politics day to day. Its not just these particularly bad actors who leave the country and exiles. Theres a continued throughout the country the creation of the ku klux klan, the red shirts, who are a version that in South Carolina, i talk in book it was very hard to write about this about riots in memphis, tennessee. Were not only in memphis, colfax and elsewhere, not only are hundreds of homes burned, thousands of people injured. But in these riots, often led by white sheriffs and business people, in these riots, quite often women are multiple, multiple times raped in public in fact, as a of white power. One congressional investigator and committee which the Congress Committees dont think that committees dont matter invest matter because they provide us with a historical if nothing else. The Congressional Committee investigations reported that it seemed as if rape was being used as a flagrant macina for intimidating all africanamericans and any of their supporters in this region, this is the world after the civil war. Now, while this is happening, the winners the good guys continue to push. Well, its not a one sided story. I write in the book about the extraordinary re activism of africanamericans, soldiers and many white and nonafrican american supporters, those who helped to start businesses, those who helped to try to change politics in the south, to create schools, to create the ame church, to create opportunities for people that didnt exist before liberty leagues selfprotection in militias and new alliances, actually quite extraordinary. Thousands slaves who did not any freedom in their lives and could not read or write become literate leaders of their communities because of their union and Army Education and participate. And then, as in world war two, as in many of our periods, the army, which has deep flaws nonetheless is probably the institution thats usually the spearhead for integrating and educating new elements of our society. And thats certainly true for africanamericans coming out the war. That is exactly what made change so difficult, though i remind people that what motivated john wilkes booth, perhaps more than anything else was seeing soldiers Holding White prisoners war in washington, dc and to think about what a shift in world that is, the war have ended on the battlefields, but these tensions, this violence actually spread through American Society. We dont appreciate how violent American Society was in 1860s and 70. Did not appreciate how violent our own history is. And one of the points i think thats absolutely is that war comes home, whether we like it or not. And when war comes home, it disrupts our politics for decades and even for centuries the memory of that period might, not be clear in many our actors minds today. But it laid the founding for much of what we see similar rhetoric, similar of force, similar paramilitary violence. It is actually not very far go from the groups ive talked about to. The proud boys today. They actually are right when they say they have a long tradition of what are doing that is built into democracy. As much as the story of, remarkable mobility for those who are formerly slaves, 4 million slaves who become free citizens, both are part of our story. Too often we focus only on one. Well, let me take ownership of that. Too often i have only focused on one part of that story. Both parts. Those stories are alive and well, and both of those stories are a war that has not ended. That still front of us. We just dont call it that this relates leadership as well. Ive years writing about leadership trying to figure it out and. My wife reminds me that i still havent. She has to usually do what i tell her not to do to get things done in office our leadership is not something one can define in universal ways. I am opposed to the argument that there is any kind of universal model leadership. There are no leaders for seasons, there are no leaders for all seasons. Let me just give you two examples that you know, Herbert Hoover and Winston Churchill, everyones heard of these two men, right . But if your hands or if you havent still put up your hands forbade me from having a heart attack here right. Herbert hoover succeeded at everything in his life. Hes the orphan who goes to stanford, who becomes the business man, the great philanthropy pest, the man who actually does better dealing with natural disasters in the United States than, anyone else, until he becomes president. And he is the singularly worst equipped person to deal with the great depression. Because the thing hoover doesnt do is empathy. Hoover does a smart analytical work. As is often said, he couldnt even get his wife to empathize with him half the time Winston Churchill Winston Churchill has a career filled with failure after hes for the boer war. Bad idea. Hes for the invasion of gallipoli. He actually designs it. Disaster. Hes for cutting the british navy in the 1920s. Not a good idea, but he becomes a towering in world war two, a truly heroic figure for all his flaws. Right. What does this tell us . Right. Theres no leader for all seasons. Leadership is circumstantial leadership is circumstantial. I spent a lot of time in the book talking about Ulysses Grant and Andrew Johnson and. Rutherford behaves though no one remembers Rutherford B Hayes right. These were men who were ill suited for the presidency at the time for Different Reasons Andrew Johnson wanted to reverse the history he had just lived through Ulysses Grant who had a fundamental, came to africanamericans in a fundamentally different because of their service in the war was politically maladroit in every way and course he was he was trained in a hierarchy the organization where everyone follows orders. Have you seen our politics its not how it works. He could not get his own party. That controlled two thirds of the senate and two thirds of the house to actually institute. He was trying to do he created a Justice Department people theres no Justice Department in the constitution. Theres an attorney general. He creates the Justice Department. Enforce the laws. He creates of military tribunals that will supersede local civilian tribunals that are not the law. But then his own party defunds the Justice Department because he couldnt persuade them that this was more important than making in the west. And, of course that was going to be hard to do. Of course they were tired of the war. Of course, northern republican is didnt want to keep fighting, but thats what Political Leadership is about. Rutherford b hayes came to the conclusion he just had to move on after an election 18, in 1876 that he lost, which is to say, received 400. That 40,000 fewer votes, at least than than samuel an election where three states and these wont surprise you florida South Carolina and louisiana had disputed votes. He becomes president with the only hope to his presidency by forgetting all the history weve just talked about and just trying to move on. Hes the example of how leadership is not saying let bygones be bygones and lets move on because when you do that the bad guys still remain in place the bad are still there our system. I think this history shows is not wellsuited to choosing the kinds of we need each of these three men became president for electoral reasons but electoral reasons are not substantive leadership reasons. Neither was a healer. Neither was a person who brought clear purpose. Neither was had the ability to publicly persuade. And none of them were really committed to changing the system. They didnt have the skill set thats, not who they were. And thats why were chosen. One of the challenges that we face is how can we make our system, system that produces and elects better leaders . We cannot rely on simply assuming our system will bring the cream to the it hasnt. In fact, it rarely does it rarely does. Thats not an antidemocratic argument. Thats actually the problem. We have to deal with. Thats the challenge we face. And by the way, thats exactly what James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and john jay debate and federalist papers were back. That space that takes me to a third area, the distortions of democracy, the best definition of democracy we have comes from abraham lincoln. Most of the best things we have come from abraham lincoln, he says in gettysburg. As everyone knows i hope everyone knows that democracy is government of. The people by the people, for the people, government of the people, by the people for the people. The challenge that the civil war poses and the postcivil war years is that the politics after the war take the people often of democracy, because the war had been a peoples war the solutions are actually solutions that limit popular activity. And so in some ways postcivil war we see remarkable creativity within our society, remarkable creativity. Create stability. But stability disenfranchizes millions of people, africanamerican and others, thats less of an issue before. The civil war, because were such a stratified society, because population lines dont have access to vote, particularly africanamerican, but also immigrant populations and, others. Its after the civil war that we see a rise in voter turnout and participation. And the question who gets to participate now and who doesnt . The participatory question becomes more important. And the postcivil war actions, especially in 1870s and eighties are creative actions to enfranchise some and not to enfranchise others. Lets talk about voting in that context. The 15 amendment in 1870, which in some ways is remarkable. It prohibits the use of race as a criterion for denying the right to vote in intentionally. As i show in the book leaves many other mechanisms for denying the right to vote. Think about it. We have a First Amendment right to free speech. It is very hard to stop someone from speaking. Weve learned that. Its very hard to stop someone from speaking, and thats good. Im a kind of First Amendment absolutist myself, right . We have a Second Amendment that at least some people think right entitles everyone to a gun. Its a debatable proposition. We have nothing like that. Voting 15th and 19th amendment simply say you cannot race or sex, but they leave the door open for many other things. I imagine if our First Amendment said that, imagine if our First Amendment said, you cannot deny someone right to free speech based on race or sex. Wed find all other ways to deny people the right to speak freely. We do that with voting ladies. And gentlemen, that was intentional. Thats exactly the debate in the late 1860s and seventies. Should have an amendment to give everyone the right to vote or and this choice by both democrats and republicans is not the republicans on this. A particularly interesting men like john sherman great from ohio and brother of William Tecumseh sherman Lyman Trumbull great senator from illinois. These men come to the conclusion that they want africanamericans to vote in the south but they dont want them to vote in their own states. And they certainly more than that, they dont want irish italian immigrants voting because those are the populations that are most disruptive to their election. Right. Theyve been elected in a stratified electorate. They want that stratified electorate to grow, but they want to keep others out. And thats a bipartisan issue. Thats a bipartisan issue. Thats not a single partizan issue. We have a remarkable history that begins the end of the civil war using poll taxes, literacy requirements, voter requirements. You in texas, if you want to vote in november, you now cannot register to vote. Texas requires you to register to vote a month in advance just an undergrad come up to me yesterday happens every election cycle and say wanted to register to vote sorry if you didnt do it by october 11th. You cant vote now. She can go out tomorrow and buy a gun if she wants, but she cant vote. But she cant vote. Why is that . Why do we do that way . We use intimidation. Were the only major democracy that votes on a work day on tuesday. That is not a holiday. We have onerous id requirements and they are onerous. If you talk to young people about what they to do and we want to talk about that, ill be delighted to. We disqualify felons who have their time so those who should not have and maybe were appropriately punished for dealing drugs at age 20, 20 years later, in about half of our states, they cannot vote. That has been taken away from them. And of course, we have locational disenfranchisement. I always find on election day its interesting to drive the retirement communities that have voting right there and then drive by other parts town where there probably isnt is in a spot to vote. Ladies and gentlemen, thats the outcome of the civil war, the debates, the war over voting is the continuation of that conflict. We are the only major democracy in the that does not have a Federal Center list protection for everyone to vote. The only one in the world. In fact, you argue, is the greatest democracy or we claim to be the greatest democracy with the worst Voting Rights, with the worst Voting Rights. Lets talk about representation as well gerrymandering goes back, of course, to the 17th century and actually goes back to the rotten boroughs in britain. But gerrymandering as we know it, precomputer, even with computers, the wisconsin gerrymander is a very 19th century gerrymander because what you see happening for the first time after the civil war are the efforts to carve areas of representation. You would not have done that before because slaves, even though they counted for the number of representatives, didnt actually get to vote. So you wouldnt have to do that. And we had actually relatively small numbers of immigrants relative to our population as the immigrant numbers go up, as our society becomes more diverse, both parties Start Playing this game. And to day, as people in wisconsin know better any other state our courts have played no role in pushing on this in any serious way. So we have some of the least representative districts in world. If if we were in a classroom, id put up some examples to you. Harris county. The county around houston is always my favorite. Harris county is larger than 11 or 12 states. Its potentially largest county in the country. Houston will soon be the Third Largest city in the u. S. Its all in harris county, right . Harris county is the most diverse county in the united by far more diverse than new york city. By new york city. Relatives dont believe this, but its true. Its the diverse area in the country because of all the vietnamese immigrants, because of all the indian immigrants, etc. Right. It has the whitest representation because of the way that the districts are drawn, because the ways the districts are drawn and by way, it doesnt seem to be much effort by the Democratic Party to change that either. They just want their individuals be in office. Thats not just about race, right . Thats about political power. And i dont to tell you about the Electoral College. The Electoral College was created by the founders as a stopgap. They couldnt figure out how to elect a president. They didnt think it would last. Its now a basis over time for creating some the most distorted outcomes in our elections. A vote in wyoming counts about 90 times a vote in california. That process is a process that gets worse every decade after the civil war. As you have new populations that move and are not adjusted in the way the electoral in the senate is set up. So we old boundaries notice we havent changed our state boundaries really since the 19th century we add hawaii and alaska, but we havent changed the 48 continental boundaries. But the populations of course have moved considerably, counting majoritarianism, a consequence of the civil war and the civil war becomes as central as majoritarianism to our system. And thats the real problem. We have repeated president s who lose the popular vote and become president. Its not just whats happened recently. Its the story of Rutherford B Hayes. Its why he wants to forget. Its the story of benjamin harrison. It happens repeatedly. We have the rising influence of the supreme, which did not play role. And i have a whole section in this book on this as now preventer of change as a conservative stopgap do not think that the warren court is a representative of what the supreme has been the Supreme Court we have is actually the Supreme Court we had at the end of the civil war. Its a Supreme Court we had in the late 19th century, the Supreme Court. We had the 1920s and 1930s, the warren court was the exception. And that be good or bad. Thats the argument. The federal Society Makes that this is actually the tradition and fact. Theyre right factually, thats the case. Just to point out how different that is during the civil war, the years right before, during and immediately years after, the number of justices was changed three times by congress. And the of the court was changed since then. That has not happened until the early 20th century. We increased the size of the house of representatives every cannibal census since then that has not happened. And that is the settlement, as we call it, of the war to hold things in and emphasize stability over change, to represent count a majoritarianism gets built into our and local violence does too. And here is the point want to come back to its why i mentioned the klan and why i mentioned the red shirts and why i mentioned the exiles. We often tell our history of being a society thats not violent right. Iraq is violent. Were not violent. Right. North korea is violent. Were not violent. This is not true. This is not true. And if we know what goes on a daily basis, ask my wife what she deals with in austin. Whats happening in terms of violence on a day to day basis, this rises and falls a different moment in our society, but the potential, the ability for violent actors to operate and in ways the cover they receive within our is something thats been there for a long time now. I will say in our moment that violence is overwhelming only coming on the right, but thats not always the case. This might sound like im making an anti right wing argument, and i am, but im not making an argument for the other extreme because weve had moments in our history of violence on the left as well. Thats not what we have. Now, let me be clear. Black lives matter protests were the most peaceful largest protests in countrys history. More white people peacefully protested on behalf black lives matter than jane brotman did in the 1960s. I saw you there. Its not the left today, but it has been at other times. So this is not actually a point about trying to give one side a historical advantage over the other. Its a recognition of that in society. Weve repeatedly allowed for paramilitary violence, and the gun ownership we see today is theres no other way to talk about it. People buy more guns every time. They fear their guns are going to be taken away. And every time they fear that someone not from their group is going to have more political power. Obamas election triggered more gun purchases. Bidens election triggered more gun purchases. Its so interesting, isnt it . Who the guns and what positions take. This man named ronald reagan, who youve all heard of when he was governor of california, was a strict advocate of gun control because the people buying the guns were black power. Oakland and elsewhere. He changed his tune on that. The donald trump. I grew up watching in new york city was an advocate of gun control. That was his point when he took this horrible position on the central jogger. He said too many, of those people are buying weapons. He was a strong advocate of gun control. Now he doesnt seem to be. I wonder why. I wonder why. Paramilitary violence, bullying, intimidation. And unfortunately, those become more and more capable in our democracy after, the civil war. So we are the worlds leading democracy. I think we are. Its our brand. But were also one of the most antidemocratic societies at the same time. And im not arguing that everything be about democracy, but i am arguing is the point of the book that we have to grapple with this and we can see it happening and the choices leaders and citizens make after the civil war and we are with those choices today. This is a cancerous pathology, a set of tumors that are vested in us. And we have to work to recognize them and take them out. Why am i optimistic . Why am i optimistic . Because i think the last few years that have shaken so many of us have awakened us to these. Most of what ive told you you might not have known all the history, but it doesnt sound that unfamiliar doesnt it sounds pretty much like our world writing this book that is 90 about the 1870s and 1880s. The parallels just jump off the page and i often dont mention them in the book because theyre so obvious. The actors at the time those who claim fraud in elections, which was claimed repeatedly then those who say they will not leave when they lose an election. Those who say theyre going to bring their good people out to enforce the law if the law wont be enforced by the army, thats all they are. Then as is here today, nothing is new. Its all old made new. But we have the opportunity to get ourselves out of this disease to pathology. We are a great body politic with the opportunity do better and we do better by diagnosing problem rather than wishing it away. Our opportunity today is to have a real debate about how to change these things. Im here to tell you where we should end up. These are difficult issues, but i am here to. Say that is what we should be about when we say our democracy is in peril. Its not because of a man with orange hair. Its actually because these issues are deeply vested. Our society and they are deeply and weaponized by certain at certain moments. If we want to prevent the replay of these events from the 1870s and the 2020s, we to actually surgically remove these elements from institutions. And thats what my book is about. Thank you. Absolutely. So questions comments. I know we have a very vocal audience. Yes, sir. And please identify yourself. My name is jim. Hi, jim. From sioux falls, south dakota. My is jim antman and im from sioux falls, south dakota. Ive been really fortunate enough in my long lifetime. Ive served almost 20 years on different City Councils in our in our area and our region down there. But im also loved to study civil war. I love the history aspects of it. But in your opinion, just asking your opinion, do you believe that if we did not have assassination of abraham lincoln, that we have been maybe put or set a different path . Its a great question, jim. And it always comes up. Its the its a its a question that needs to be asked. And im glad you asked it. It would have been different if lincoln had lived. One of the big changes that is that Andrew Johnson, who was only on the ticket because, he was the one southern senator who did not. Right. Andrew johnson wants to pardon all bad guys. I talked about all these former confederates so they were able to get back into politics because they pardoned. Theres a real problem with. President ial pardons, whether its bill clinton pardoning donors or whether its donald trump. Notice when both parties for you, theyre whether its donald trump pardoning his goons right. One way or another, this a problem. So Andrew Johnson does lincoln when he would not have pardoned them, he might have pardoned the soldiers, but he would not have pardon these officers who go back into the rolls, especially Alexander Watkins, terrell, and play these horrible roles in basically institutionalizing the confederacy in the post confederate world. And thats the way to think about what theyre doing. So that would have been a but i dont think lincoln had figured out how to deal with the lingering that were going to take decades, if not generations, to change a book. I hope you all will read. We did a podcast on this to after you read my book, i is a book by susan neiman, who sure venkat knows. Well, its learning from the germans and she talks about this concept for gang and alphabet. Tom, which is working. Germans make everything sound harder than. It is right now working your history and challenge lincoln would have had would be to get people to work through this history, to change the way think. And thats so i think that only happens one way really with a new generation. Most of us in this room are not going to change the way we think, but our children will. Right, natalie our children will. And thats what germanys done right . I dont think lincoln was equipped that, but he would have done a still a better job than Andrew Johnson did. Thank for your question, jim. Monique all right, jeremy, you. Monique mobley from to q wisconsin. And actually my question little bit follows up on what your last line was. I work in a high school in quantico. I do not work in the History Department or, the english department. I am a member of our diversity equity and Inclusion Committee within one who is trying to grapple with this issue and doing good, hard work. And i give a shout out to that. However, theres a lot of pushback. What advice what encouragement can you give for people who are just locals, citizens trying to make our communities . And people are telling dont want to talk about it and just bring up a lot of issues that dont help us move the conversation forward. Its such an important question. Monique and i addressed, that exact issue at the end of the book because, i think first of all, first of all, what youre doing, monique and other teachers is so important and let me even before i get into that, let me just make a shout out for teachers. They do so much in our society, get so paid and on in our society. And thats just obviously im educator, so im biased but i think im right i think im right. So i end the book by making the point monique that you only improve society by studying where you have fallen short as well as where youve done well. And i think about this in the same way i think about parenting and. Nathalie can correct me if im wrong, but you know, the way alison and i have approached parenting, we love our children dearly. Ill do anything for my children. But our conversations dinner are not about how great they are. Are great. Much better than us. Much or much better than me. Theyre much more empathetic. They are much they are less competitive. I am. Theyre better in so many ways. But what are our discussions with them . How can you improve not your horrible youre a wonderful person, but you can still improve. You have short comings. We all do. And it wont surprise you. They respond and tell me my shortcomings. Right . But. But thats because we love them. We hold them to the highest standard. Those i love the most. I hold to the highest standard. I spend the most time trying worth. My favorite students are the students spending the most time trying to help them improve. Ill have a lot of students who. They need to improve. They dont care. So im not going to care as much. Thats just the reality. I have 300 undergrads. I teach, cannot spend an hour a week with all 300 of them. Ive tried. It doesnt work right. But i can spend an hour a week with the ten or 15 who are really trying learn to write most them dont know how to write really to learn to think critically. Most of them think theyre doing that. Theyre not right. I love those students because theyre to get better. So i give them more time. But im not spending my time giving them attaboys. Im spending my time helping them to see how they can improve their writing, tearing apart their writing to show them how to write. Ive done that for some of you in here, david fields and others write that thats what we do. Right. And so if you love your country, you want to expose where your country has fallen short. That is the most patriotic act, that is the most patriot act you can have. And thats what i what i argue at the end of the book is that it studying the dark sides our history that help us to improve if you really believe in democracy, you have to say i believe can do this. We can be better and lets go forward and the urge to do otherwise to me seems to to be a giving up. It seems unpaid realistic and we need to turn around that discussion. So my specific advice to you is to try, however you can to explain that to these parents say look thats why i actually opened by talking about an immigrant and how im an immigrant or the child of immigrants and i love this country. Say, i love this country. Im doing this with your kids because i love the country. If you dont love your country and you want give up on democracy, fine. We dont have to talk about this. But if you care about this i think its the most patriotic act one could undertake. All right. Richard russell from madison. Youve probably heard phrase those who begin burning books. And by burning people. And i was a little concerned about your metaphor of uprooting and taking things out by the roots, because it sounds to me like youre advocating purging. How how do you i can understand purging ideas or trying to overcome ideas, but it sounds suspiciously like purging people. How how do you go about reconciling those concepts . Im you brought this up, richard. Thank you. Im not for im not for silencing any idea. Actually, i think ideas, as horrible as they might, as i think i said. Right, im pretty close to an absolutist on free speech. But i do think richard that institu tions need to be remade, that our institutions carry certain history with them. And so im for uprooting institutions. Im for us looking long and hard, the institutions we have and saying, do they serve the purposes we have agreed they should serve . Let me give you one that i dont think is actually partizan increasing the size of the house representatives. As i said, weve done it every decade in our history until the 19 teens we stopped. So now i think each member of congress represents more than 750,000 people. Do you feel represented by your member of congress. You have your mark pocan here. Right. So some of you might think you are good. Most americans, we know the most americans say they are not democrat or republican. Theres agreement on that. Most americans, democrat, republican, say my congressperson doesnt understand where. I come from what i do. Lets uproot this belief weve had since early 20th century. Really the stalling of the size of the house of representatives make the house of representatives, the german bundys tarred for a society that is one fifth or one sixth. The size of ours has twice as many. And they seem to be able to function. You can agree or disagree with their policy. Why not . Why not create more . Why . Why dont we do that . Thats the kind of uprooting im talking about institutionally adjusting. I think universities could go through this, too, right . Im continually that i have very few who didnt have parents who to college. Its very hard at a public university. We need to rethink our education system. There are a whole group of people who are left who are not getting into uw, not getting in to u. T. Because the system benefits certain people wasnt built for that reason. University of wisconsin wasnt the wisconsin was not only if your dad went to college, do you get to go to college. Right . So im for that kind of uprooting, but im not for silencing any idea. And definitely not for purging a single book from any library anywhere. That is the refuge of cowards that im afraid of what youll read. And to there to moniques point, i mean, as a parent ive learned that the day, i try to prevent my children from exposed to something is the day they actually want to read it more. So i also just dont understand that counterproductive element of this. Jim kurtz, jeremy, jim kurtz from milton, im glad to see you as stupid as you were when you left madison. But you do need that because im not hanging out with you anymore. I think that youve kind of glossed over really pretty fundamental point and our constitution, the constitution was written by north european men with the idea of excluding voting from all people that werent north american men. And in order to have the constitution set up, there was, a compromise of that land needed to be represented as well as people. And so, you know, people who talk about Electoral College, its a bogus argument. Theyve got to deal with the constitution, agree with you. And basically say, i dont know how youre going to. The worst thing that could happen was to have a constitutional convention. I agree with nothing that be worse than that. So i dont know. So were really not a democracy. Were a democracy within the states in order to a popular vote to who . The president ial candidates are, electors are. So were a democracy. 5050 different democracies. And i dont know how. And people dont talk about that. Thats the problem. You know, if youre going to prevail in an election and had situations like is ladies 19, 2016 when a president ial candidate didnt choose come to wisconsin. He didnt want wisconsins electoral and basically have to play its like playing football think you have to play by the rules in a rules are is you need to get win enough when when a majority of enough states in order to get elected. Yeah yeah. And you know and that is what thats thats doable its not doable to change the constitution. Well so, you know, i disagree with that. Think its really hard to change the constitution. But the constitution built to be. I agree with you. Okay, good. Im glad youre making progress. You know, thats the first time im going to say im going to sit down before i make you look. Okay. Thank you, jim. 13th. 14th and 15th amendments like the other thereafter, which have been rare, are of the constitution. There is much the constitution as what the founders put it in the constitution. And we can change the constitution really, really hard. But it can be done if we actually work toward that. And so know i am a believer in revolution from within. Thats back to your question before. Right. This is the Rudy Dutschke approach, right . The long march through the institutions. Weve got to do that hard work because as a historian, ill tell you and i know james is going to disagree with me later and yell at me revolution actually to produce bonaparte ism, it tends to produce authority and ism. So im not for revolution im for working through the system as hard as it is. I would to see us have a national conversation, a right to vote. And i think that we actually could get an amendment within ten years for a right to vote. I want to do what the suffragists did and go back. Were white and i want us to get a right to vote for everyone. I want us to have a constitutional amendment so human being gets to marry any other being. Im yet to find an undergraduate who doesnt agree with that. In my most conservative undergrads right. So you know what . As long as theyre human beings and they want to marry, as we say in, new york, god bless. Right . God bless. Right. Its hard. We can do it. I want to give up on that. I think actually were too quick to give up that lets do the work. Lets do the work. Stu, stu levitan, madison, good to see you, professor this relates to the first question, but i think its different if you take the Terror Campaign by the knights of the white camellia and the ku klux klan out of the equation, 1865, 66, 67. And grant doesnt get discouraged and stays strong reconstruction. Does that exercise. And the tumor orders. Wilmington, 1898 still happen . Absolutely. Think wilmington, 1898. And just so were on the same page, wilmington 1898 is one of many coups that occur in our society. Didnt make this point in the lecture. But stu is reminding me as as he does so well, that actually this kind of violence has had political implications time and again colfax, 1873 is a community in louisiana where you have an africanamerican government and you have white terrorists, come in and actually assassinate the leaders of the government and take over 1898. And wilmington is the same. And there actually are a number of other examples of that. So coups people say there are no coups in American History. Well, they just havent read American History then, which is what stu is reminding us of, if the end of the civil war, if at the end of the civil war grant had been able to use more military force and had been willing to do and perhaps if lincoln had lived back to james question, it would have been harder for these groups operate, but it would not have eliminated eliminated their operation. It would have required a re mobilization of the american. It would have required not just grant doing more with what he had, but actually continuing to fight the war. And thats one of the lessons the war doesnt end the other side gives up. Its only just begun. Its only just begun there was nowhere near the northern commitment necessary to make change, just as there was nowhere near commitment necessary in vietnam for whatever it is we were trying to do, or nowhere. The commitment in iraq. And if you dont have the commitment from your public, you cant do it. Thats the problem. Maybe lincoln would have persuaded americans, but it wasnt there at the time. Yes, sir. Hi thanks for being here, jeremy. Steve holtzman. Hi, steve. A former alder person that can understand how hard your wife works. Thank you. Thank you. Im hoping your texas perspective can bring some wisdom. Madison, right now. Most people in this room, well, not that wisconsins playing football at this moment, but on the facts network, not on espn, which brought in hundreds of millions to big ten teams. So with the Wisconsin Athletic Department rolling in money, their proposal is a 300 million workout facility that will replace some of the existing facilities. And to put that in perspective, our new Computer Science building will be about 125 million. I knew l. A. Building, thats in part sponsored by the sponsor of the book festival, marvel tv, richard levy. Thats 90 million. And so 300 million. Now, i understand youre chair is endowed by former coach of the Texas Football team and im wondering if you have any perspectives on how to maybe channel some of that 300 million into scholarship ops and Academic Excellence rather than question steve, i its a great question. Im this brings back so many memories i used to be on the athletic board here as some of you might remember, which is a dinosaur now what, two successful. Two successful now. Yeah. No i was one of many battles ive lost. Im know i was trying to change things. Lets look lets talk about operating institutions is one of the most corrupt elements in our society today. Is the ncaa absolutely corrupt . Its absolutely corrupt. The coaches get paid millions of dollars. Im not against people making millions of dollars, but theyre getting paid millions of dollars because the labor gets paid nothing or next to nothing. Its a great system, isnt it . Right. If you could run your business that way anyone in this room will, youd be doing well. You got free, right . Yeah. We give them scholarships. The Athletic Department doesnt pay for those. And by the way, the scholarships are very low cost relative to the revenue thats produced right. Your coach was just fired midseason and took home 11 million. That happens to all of you right when you leave a job. That happens to all of you when you when you leave a job, look, what has happened is that College Football has become big entertainment money. Its hollywood. Its entertainment. And the people running universities are the most ill equipped people to do this. So who runs this . Athletics runs itself. Athletics raises money for athletics. Athletics uses that money to pay the shareholders in athletics. Who are the coaches and the Athletic Director . Right. Thats what happens. And thats not going to change. Steve until we do what i was arguing should have done and didnt do. So obviously i failed, which is an betsy martin was chancellor here. My argument was you need to actually tell them your sheriff and that that money is your money and give that to students wouldnt it be nice back to my point about out scholarships students from non advantaged backgrounds wouldnt it be wonderful if the university of wisconsin could offer right not just inexpensive tuition which you have instate poor families. Right but actually will cover all your costs . Well make it easy. Well give you tutoring will make it easier for you to succeed if you come from a disadvantaged background. We could use that money so much better, but instead were lining the pockets of coaches. Its despicable, is my opinion on this, steve. Its only going to change when we force these institutions to it. And right now it doesnt change. Ill tell you, every University President i know ive known the last three well at the university of texas, knew many of the wonderful president s here, or chancellors, as you call them, and billy martin, john wiley, they are scared to take this on because there are powerful donors who stand in the way, complain about powerful donors in our politics its even worse at universities theres been a number of studies of this University President s spend more than half their time with athletics and athletic donors. More time than they spend in the classroom or with faculty or with students it doesnt matter public, private until we change that, until the legislature forces to change that, were to be corrupt in the way we are. But i want to i dont want to i dont want to destroy the university. I want the university to do what the university is supposed to do, prioritize education. But i dont i see that burkey and conservatism right. And thank now on book tv we ad by the coauthor of this book called superabundance the story of population growth, innovation, and Human Flourishing on an infinitely bountiful planet