Transcripts For CSPAN3 Thomas Jeffersons Union 20150404

Union in a sense was so important during the 19thcentury is gone. There were contending understandings of the meaning of union. Almost always tied to ideas about liberty and opportunity and frequently enmeshed with beliefs about the place of the institution of slavery in the american republic. All of the individuals who have been the subjects of lectures in this series talked about union from madison and other framers of the constitution who drafted what they thought would lead to a more perfect union, to Andrew Jackson who very famously referred to union in making a toast while he looked right at john c. Calhoun during the nullification crisis on jeffersons birthday in 1832. He said our federal union must be preserved, to which, as many of you know, calhoun replied the union next to our liberty most dear. During the election of 1860 when four candidates ran for the presidency under four party standards, all of them talked about union. All of them wanted to be right with union. For lincoln and most republicans, the union was a sort of mystical, perpetual, indivisible, eternal thing. Stephen douglas, who was the regular democratic candidate that year stated over and over that whatever else happens the union had to be preserved. After the election of 1860, john c. Breckenridge says the constitution and equality of the states are symbols of everlasting union. And the fourth candidate, old john bell, who ran as candidate of the Constitutional Union party, didnt talk about anything else. They didnt even have a platform. Their platform was in their title. It was union. And the constitution. Union comes up so often during this century, which is not peters perfect century, but it is his second favorite century after the late 18th century. Lincolns vision of union rested on free labor and a voice in selfgovernment for common citizens and the potential to rise economically. Not the guarantee but the potential. Jefferson davis also believed in the union as safeguarding selfgovernment and Economic Opportunity, but of course he also saw it as guaranteeing slavery in its expansion. Both men celebrated the declaration of independence. That is lincolns great founding document. In his view. Both invoked jefferson repeatedly and throughout their years. Jeffersons ideas regarding union were complex and immensely important. We are almost to you peter. They resonated throughout the 19th century on both sides of the Potomac River or the ohio, if you prefer. The United States put Thomas Jefferson on its 5cent stamp in 1856. Only two people preceded jefferson on stamps in the United States. Jorge, of course, always would have to be one of them. The other one was benjamin franklin. The confederacy put him on their 10cent stamp in 1861. The only person who landed on a confederate stamp before jefferson was Jefferson Davis, interestingly enough. This afternoon peter and i are going to have our conversation about jeffersons thinking about union and how his ideas were available for use or misuse by many different people in the decades between 1800 and 1880, peter. So why dont you talk for a few minutes about jefferson and union . Prof. Onuf just a few minutes . Prof. Gallagher take as long as you want. It is rainy outside. No ones going to play tennis. Prof. Onuf well, im a radio star so i want you all to close your eyes and suspend disbelief. Prof. Gallagher peter has are not only a jefferson side, but two jefferson pins. Prof. Onuf well, gary, id like to start with a quotation from jefferson and its an interesting one. Its when hes talking about the declaration of independence as hes designing a reading list at the university of virginia. Goering are used to do this together. We used to teach a course, the famous 701. That reading list included the declaration, of course. Oh, i didnt write it. The American People wrote it. Im just channeled it. Im just chilling it. He channeled the American People. Anyway, he said, what is the declaration . We want jeffersons simple definition of what the declaration is all about. He says it is the fundamental act of union of these states. He says the declaration gave us union. Now, as gary said just before, we dont that word Means Nothing to us now. What could he possibly have meant, why did he say it. Why didnt he talk instead about all those wonderful things in the second paragraph. Oh, all men are created equal. Youve heard that one. Government by consent. The american creed, as its frequently been described. Yet for jefferson, there is something creedal about union. What i want to do is try to put union and his vision of republican government together because i think we and many critics in the 19th century dissociated the two. Now you say it is only referring maybe vestiges only fastidiously vestigiously to what used to be called the Labor Movement in the 18th century, in jeffersons time, and into the 19th century as people criticized the union, they looked at its flaws. People like William Lloyd garrison said this is a covenant with death, with hell, this constitution. The union is associated with the constitution, not with the declaration, and the constitution is the beginning of american politics. When we still had political life in this country, americans celebrated the constitution as this great reform caucus inaction, as one author called it, where sensible, realistic statesmen got together and they crafted the only possible miraculously, the only possible constitution that could embrace so many different states, different labor systems, so much diversity. It was a compromise, in other words. As garrison suggested, to have union, you had to compromise. Any good historian will tell you thats exactly the point of the union right now. Thats not what jefferson meant by union, though. For him, it was the coming together of selfgoverning republics, which in and of itself, the fact that the states had their own constitutions, were governing themselves, what a tremendous breakthrough for mankind, this idea of selfgovernment. And then showing their genius for union in the creation of new state governments, the first peoples in the modern world who govern themselves. Then, theyve built on that to create yet a more allembracing union. Union was part of the unfolding of the republican vision. There would be future unions. The union would expand. The union was dynamic. The union was processed. The union was a Movement Toward a better world because what it demonstrated weve talked about equality. We know how important that is. Were all equal. But what is the point of equality . It enables you to consent. You cant consent if youre not equal. And what do you consent to . You consent to that which enhances the welfare of mankind. Because suddenly the people are governing themselves. Theyre not under the heel of despots and pirates. Tyrants. Now selfgovernment. And i want to tell you this, my fellow americans [laughter] prof. Onuf im getting worked up now. You can tell. Prof. Gallagher have a sip of water. Prof. Onuf i better. [laughter] prof. Onuf americans, youre just going to have to wait a minute. Democratic government. Hold on to your seats. Is an engine for moral progress. I am channeling jefferson. I am channeling the enlightenment, the democratic enlightenment. Once the people rule themselves, government will improve. We will no longer have coercive despotic governments. We will be governing ourselves. Where do we take our prof. Gallagher you cant have a real union if theres in any coercion at all. Prof. Onuf that is absolutely writes. This is a point we will go back to. Prof. Gallagher maybe sooner than you think. Prof. Onuf really . Prof. Gallagher we may not be linear here this afternoon. It may be sort of stream of consciousness but go ahead for now. [laughter] prof. Onuf i will just make a quick prof. Gallagher its a process. Prof. Onuf yes its a process. , dont think of union as a fixed thing. Its not perfect. You heard what madison said. What they said about the constitution. More perfect. Suggesting its not most perfect. Its not perfect. Its getting better. Because we dont understand yet, what natures god enjoins but were figuring it out. I dont know if anybody out there is into natural religion and acknowledges natures god, unless you are a unitarian. But they dont talk about natures god in unitarian churches. I know, im lapsed unitarian. Prof. Gallagher can you be a lapsed unitarian . [laughter] prof. Onuf check it out. This is what you get. Prof. Gallagher from what youre saying, let me push you on Something Else right here. If this is a process and its things are going toward, with any luck, something thats even better, did jefferson think this could only be i mean the union became very much an exceptionalist concept by the mid19th century. Is it that way in jeffersons mind . Could this happen somewhere else . Prof. Onuf there is an exceptional dimension. You know, the city on the hill idea that weve heard from Ronald Reagan as he was channeling john winthrop, that idea that United States is an exemplary nation. The example suggests that others can follow. But follow is the key word. They will become more enlightened in the fullness of time. Whats remarkable about the American People is these are the people who made the revolution is that they they are all literate mostly, except in places like virginia just joking. I come from new england. I cant help it. They are largely literate. Prof. Gallagher new england used to be important. Didnt it . [laughter] prof. Onuf ok, lets reenact. [laughter] prof. Onuf colorado boy colorado did not exist, ok . All right. Moving on. Prof. Gallagher it actually did exist. New england just hadnt named it yet so they didnt think it existed. [laughter] [applause] prof. Onuf you know now why the union failed. All right. So where was i going with this . Prof. Gallagher i had asked you whether jeffersons notion was an exceptionalist notion of what was happening in the colonies at that point, because it became very much that. Prof. Onuf right. And jefferson does think that the americans have a unique opportunity to govern themselves because they are literate in the broadest sense of the word. Theyre civically competent. Theres been a high degree of local autonomy and selfgovernment in the colonies and the revolution itself is testimony to the fact that americans are conscious of their rights and willing to fight for them. Because this was a peoples war. I dont believe all this, but i am just channeling jefferson. Prof. Gallagher lincoln called the civil war a peoples contest. Prof. Onuf and thats the important thing. Because that is the principle of republican government. We now have abandoned notions that we have little gods on earth, kings, who give rule to us, who are our political fathers without whom we could not exist. We have abandoned the great chain of being that suggests that some are born to rule and others are born to be ruled. What a magnificent idea. But what a scary idea in the 18th century when the people are basically considered and im now quoting Abigail Adams rubbish. I just happened to be reading her recently. But it is a common way of referring to ordinary people the scum prof. Gallagher lincoln and many other unionists in the mid 19th century would have said nothing had really changed, that the rest of the world still didnt think that ordinary people were capable of selfgoverning. Prof. Onuf i think thats a key point when we compare lincoln and jefferson on union. Lincoln sees that this is the last best hope of mankind. You might say that jefferson sees it as the first best hope for mankind. That he has this enlightenment idea that it will spread. Light will spread. Its almost a metaphor thats natural, that suggests as the day dawns and as the light spreads across the land, people can see clearly. That notion of seeing clearly is very important. And the people are capable of seeing what they need to see. What they need to see to govern themselves. You dont have to be, as we say now, a nuclear physicist. You just have to be a democrat no, just joking. [laughter] prof. Gallagher what about the notion of the union being perpetual, that was so important by the mid century to people who saw all of these qualities in union that made the United States exceptional . Prof. Onuf thats a great point. That point about perpetuity. The only thing that jefferson thought should be perpetual were the fundamental principles or ideas on which the union was based. And let me put it this way. Were going to get into this complicated development thats really important over time. I want to introduce the key to jeffersons thinking about union. And thats federalism. Jeffersonian federalism is not what we have today. You have to understand that his conception of Political Authority, legitimate Political Authority begins in the family. We talk about family values today, but for jefferson, the family was the foundational republic on which larger republics would be built. I think its important to get this down, because its going to explain, i think, a lot of things that happen over the 19th century. For jefferson, federalism culminating in the union and perhaps in an expanding union, perhaps even a union of unions that will cover the world, begins literally at home. And that Foundational Union of man and wife, the creation of a family which is the incubator of republican citizens in the next generation. Families combine together, for jefferson had new england envy. Gary obviously doesnt. He wished virginia had towns. What do we have in virginia. What did we have in virginia . Counties. In which local clerks selfappointed themselves, and gave rule through parish vestrys, through county courts. The only Representative Institution was the house of burgesses. And those elections, 90 of them werent contested. And the ones that were contested were drunken brawls, because thats the way you treated voters. Its a pretty sorry story. And jefferson was familiar with this. He said we need towns so the families, the fathers, can get together. And on top of the towns, the counties. And then we go to a higher level, to the states. And then to the union, the federal union. Heres the key idea. I am going to throw this back at you. Equality is crucial. We talked before about you cant have consent without equality. And every prof. Gallagher you cannot have coercion. Prof. Onuf no. Every level of union, whether it be on the town level, the union of families, or the county level, the union of towns, those unions exist to preserve and perpetuate the equality of their constituent units. Do you follow me . Thats pretty straightforward. In other words, the legitimacy the value of the union of the town is that all families will be treated equally and have an equal voice in their own government. And you move up the ladder, that imperative remains. And that is, union depends on preserving equality of constituent units, because otherwise, some are benefiting at the expense of other thats another way of saying that some are ruling the others. You know, the great problem with unions throughout our periods is the fear that its going to be captured by the bad guys. And one thing americans produce in great abundance is bad guys. Prof. Gallagher this problem, though, of equality within the union did you have another did i step on your punch line there . Prof. Onuf no, i was waiting for a big response. Prof. Gallagher oh, ok. Are you going to respond . I dont think theyre going to. One thing that for example john c. Calhoun wrestled with, how do you maintain what he would have called equality equal treatment in all the ways that matter, within a union where demographics were tilting power toward the nonslave holding states. Prof. Onuf thats, of course the great nightmare of the slave holders. And their need to control, in fact, to capture which is precisely what they did, because the federal government was dominated by slave holders throughout its existence up to the civil war. So much so that by the time lincoln comes along, and says, well, maybe we should agree not to let the area of the slave states expand. , then thats too much. Thats violating the basic idea of union. Heres the problem, i think its what we would try to reconcile as we talk about the problem of union, how can you have equality or liberty, you might put it autonomy, independence, and union . Is there a tension between them . Thats what i mean by prof. Gallagher whats the line between compromise and coercion, they would have argued about that too. You say you are compromising and i am saying no. Prof. Onuf what im going to suggest to you, im going to try to channel jefferson here, the way we resolve such quarrels is that Public Opinion becomes progressively more enlightened. And thats whats so hard for us to believe in an era in which Public Opinion doesnt become more enlightened. Prof. Gallagher thats the idea of an organic developing union too. Thats going to be part of it. Prof. Onuf right, it will expand. And the idea that expansion means balancing free and slave states, thats insane. Because jefferson honestly believes that slavery will eventually disappear. And why is it going to disappear . Not because of economic forces and market forces. Its going to disappear because people are going to see that its wrong. Remember, the revolution was against the spotted despotic authority. And jefferson does not have a great record on slavery. I can to you that right now. What he does believe the a sick principle of republican government is equality, it is not coercion. It is consent. Slavery, even surely that contradiction between a republic of slave holders is going to become too striking, too conspicuous, and americans will see its in their best interest. Prof. Gallagher would he have argued for each equality among the white citizenry or would he have included everybody . Prof. Onuf no, he wouldnt. The short answer on this as you know, is that for jefferson the idea of the way he thinks about slaves is as a captive nation, held unjustly, this is important. Slaves dont deserve to be slaves, theyre not naturally slaves, they are slaves because of what jefferson would like to blame george the third and his president s predecessors for sanctioning the slave trade because we have them. But it is an evil institution, its unjust. The solution is to end the state of war that is slavery. It is a state of war, its a cold war of a violent coercive institution. The very antithesis of republican government. His big concern about slavery is that young men in virginia will grow up in a world of slaveholders and that will be their school. They dont have Public Schools in virginia in the antebellum period. Instead theyre going to learn how to be slave holders. Theyre going to learn how to tyrannize people older than they are. People as old as we are. Kids because of race privilege, because theyre white, thats horrible from jeffersons perspective. We need to break the chains and send them somewhere else. Prof. Gallagher he would see a union down the road where black people would have been removed . Prof. Onuf they would have been removed. Ultimately this is in the best , of all possible worlds. And jeffersons a patient guy. It could take generations. Its not going to happen in his lifetime. He keeps pushing the date off. But eventually, people will see the light and emancipate slaves and send them he doesnt know where, maybe the west indies maybe west africa. But in the best of all possible future worlds, the former slaves, the freed people, will govern themselves, and then as an independent selfgoverning people, they can form unions. The union among the enlightened republican nations of the world, we can divide black and white so that one day we can unite. Prof. Gallagher lincoln embraced colonization as well . Prof. Onuf yes. Prof. Gallagher until deep into the civil war. Didnt go over until 1812. Prof. Onuf given the depth of what we call race prejudice, i want to suggest the way race and nation are synonymous terms, and hes jeffersons really thinking geopolitically about warring nations. And all the things he says about slavery grow out of his wartime experience. Slaves are dangerous to the future of the republic, because theyre a fifth column, because when they have the opportunity and this is how slavery is ended throughout the world in wartime, they will seize it. Prof. Gallagher nothing destabilizes slavery the way a war destabilizes slavery. Whether its the revolution or the war of 1812 along the chesapeake, as alan showed us or , the civil war where the armies are great engines of units a patient into the confederacy. Its the worst thing that can happen to a slave holders world. Prof. Onuf so, jefferson does believe in the separation of races. For native americans, they can become civilized they can become whites, in other words and they , can adopt farming ways, and become, effectively, whites. After all, all good virginians we probably have a few in the room you have to be careful in crowd like this youre all descendents of pocahontas, if im not mistaken. Prof. Gallagher im a 19th century guy, i have no idea what was going on with pocahontas. [laughter] prof. Gallagher thats so early. Prof. Onuf it is not really my period either. Prof. Gallagher thats so early. Many people as we move through the 19th century would use Thomas Jefferson and would use him in the sectional debates to buttress arguments for state rights, in a system, within a union that has become unbalanced as the Central Government is threatening rights of the constituent parts. And they look to the virginia and kentucky resolutions. What would jefferson say about that . Prof. Onuf well, he wasnt in his grave, yet, during the missouri controversy, but he did some turning over nonetheless, because when it looked like the union would fall apart i dont know if you all know about the missouri controversy, it was weather or not missouri would be admitted as a slave state to the union it ultimately was in tandem with the free state of maine, one of the great states of our union. Shout out to you. But this argument about the future of slavery was one that looked like it was creating a line of separation between those states with slaves and the socalled free states. And that fear of the capture of the federal government was intense for jefferson. Jeffersons position was in effect, oh, give us time and well deal with our domestic keyword domestic institution. Its none of your business. And eventually well deal with it, but when you threaten to destroy the union, which is what he thinks the restrictionists in the missouri controversy theres northern republicans people in jeffersons own party and former federalists who are , pushing for a limit on slavery, thats the trigger issue throughout the antebellum decades. Those people mean to seize power, the restrictionist, and subject the Southern States to a colonial provincial status, they will be creatures of a strong federal government. Whenever that happens, people Start Talking about, thats the return of the reddish British Empire. This is evil. You can see from jeffersons logic why he would be so acute ly sensitive to threats to the equal status of the Southern States, because what he says to the restrictionists in the missouri controversy is, youre telling us that we dont have republican governance, that were not perfect republics because we still have slaves. Most of the states, even the north, still have slaves but that your commitment to the institution of slavery makes you less than a republic. And the guaranteed clause of the constitution, according to the restrictionists, guarantees republican government to all the states. And so now youre saying, all states are not created equal. There are the real republics that is the northern states that are getting rid of slavery. And then there are these slaveholding hybrids. Hybrids werent a good thing in those days. [laughter] prof. Onuf in the south. So that notion of equality is really crucial. What i want to suggest here, and i talk about that federalist and business, look forward and outward with jefferson from the founding of the republic, and federalism looks like the secret. It is going to unfold. The whole world will one day be embraced by this republican vision. Its the means by which we have it both ways. Which is what all good americans want. Prof. Gallagher it only works if you really find a balance between the center and the localities. Prof. Onuf right. And you all, ultimately have to share the same set of lease. Beliefs. This may be the ultimate naivety of the enlightenment project. Ill tell you what the key beliefs are, equality, consent that those ideas we still cherish, we all agree on that. Remember, its the declaration were celebrating, not the constitution. Prof. Gallagher its the declaration that Jefferson Davis referred to when he said all the Southern States are doing is asserting their right to selfdetermination in 1860, 1861. Prof. Onuf yes, he was drawn on jefferson. There is no question about that. What i would say to you, is that the collapse of the union, i talked about jefferson turning over prematurely in his not yet grave. If the union splits, then the revolution was pointless. Then the United States is pointless. And ill tell you why. Because as soon as you break up the union, well, whats to stop the fragmentation from continuing. Prof. Gallagher well, it will continue. Thats what lincoln would have said. Prof. Onuf what do you get when you get a disUnited States. You take union for granted now. We do not divide along sectional lines any more. Well, we do actually, but on a micro level, ive been taught there are a lot of blue people in the red states. And they are really blue these days. Prof. Gallagher i dont believe many people believe in secession any more. Prof. Onuf they do not. But heres the dilemma, its the collective security problem. In an anarchy, which is the technical word, an anarchy, we whatever level we achieve some kind of temporary equilibrium, those states are in nature with each other, which means a state of war. That is what a state of nature is. They may not be fighting, but one day they will. During the period of the founding in the 1780s, this was the great argument. You need to strengthen the union and make it more perfect lest the United States become disunited and become an image of europe. Why did we even bother to try to form a new nation if the best we can do is create a knockoff version of europe. Pretty pathetic. Because well be at war with each other. Guess what happens when theres war, my fellow republicans . When theres war, you have to exercise power. It exaggerates executive Power Military power. You get military industrial complexes. Nations at war are nations that have a lot of problems with liberty, because all you liberty lovers out there are a bunch of subversive terrorists. We have to suppress you. It is wartime, ok . You follow me . You need to preserve prof. Gallagher im trying to keep up. Yes, i am. Prof. Onuf i was trying to explain that simple point prof. Gallagher peter and i have talked for years and im having little flashbacks as we go along here. Prof. Onuf he is not going to send me out of the room, as he did during one of our seminars. [laughter] prof. Onuf this is my time. Prof. Gallagher only for ten minutes. [laughter] prof. Gallagher and then he came back. Just like the states they after appomattox, which leads me to my next question. If a union cannot involve coercion, how would jefferson have looked at the resolution of the american civil war, is that still a worthwhile union that is put back together after this not that hes against bloodying. The french revolution did not bother him. He was happy to see rivers of blood. But this is a lot much blood in the american civil war, are constituted union that lincoln would have said of course, what would his response to that be . Prof. Onuf i think lincoln could have persuaded him it was a good thing the Union Lincoln celebrates, the union that your men, your people, the winners, the good folks, the good guys. Prof. Gallagher colorado counties are named after union generals. Unlike counties in new england. [laughter] prof. Onuf because our counties were already named by that point. Prof. Gallagher after tired old go ahead. [laughter] prof. Onuf think about it for a minute. The union that lincoln wants to preserve, thats a perfect thing that needs to be preserved, hes not looking forward to expansion. In fact, the Republican Party platform is to end expansion if it means more slave states. Prof. Gallagher well, it means to end expansion of slavery. It doesnt mean to end expansion of the nation . Prof. Onuf well it probably , does, because of the political impasse, doesnt it . I do not know. But the union is perfect. It needs to be preserved. I think something has happened to the idea, which is what i am getting at. Rather than looking at expansively, were now protecting a great nation dominate in its continent, even prospectively in its hemisphere, this is this great nation has a manifest destiny. As people like to say in the antebellum decades. We squander that great advantage. We forfeit it. We risk to relapsing into debit to some depotism in a state of war. We need to preserve this thing its sacred, and there is an element an element of a static quality to it. Something to be. Prof. Gallagher i think if you read lincoln early in the civil war, you may get more of a sense of its being static. He would have talked about getting rid of slavery is improving the union. It is an improved union, at the end. Its the kind of union that jefferson would have agreed with. From what you say. Prof. Onuf i think thats right. You talked about lincoln as a colonization nest. Colonizationist. He is not eager to integrate. He wants to preserve. Prof. Gallagher his experience in illinois, indiana, and kentucky convinced him it was possible. He is beyond that by the end of the civil war. Prof. Onuf i do think what motivates lincoln is a sense of that great destiny for the nation. The fact that it is a republic is important. I think lincolns Great Service to jefferson is to redeem him. There is a dimension of jeffersons thinking that is captured in lincolns apotheosis of jefferson in the gettysburg address and elsewhere. This republic needs to be preserved as we said before, for lincoln, the last best hope of mankind. For jefferson, more hopeful, perhaps, the first best hope. Prof. Gallagher i gather from some of the things youve said about jefferson, that he really did believe that if things did not work out, that perhaps some unions would fail and others would rise. Lincoln didnt believe that, he believed if this one failed the ideas of selfgovernance and of Economic Opportunity would simply be gone and the forces of oligarchy would have reasserted themselves. Prof. Onuf i think lincoln and jefferson would have agreed on this. Jeffersons response to the missouri controversy, if we cant find an equitable compromise, some way that respects the rights of all member states, if we cant be reassured about that, then all hell will break loose. As i said theres no point to , this experiment in republican government. It failed. Thats a key word, experiment. These are natural philosophers. We call them scientists. Scientists of government. It is the founders. It is the way we like to think about them. Particularly lyrical theorists. This is a great seminar, constitutional convention, theyre coming up with this brilliant plan and theyre going to see how it works. Maybe it doesnt work, maybe the experiment fails. What does that say about the future of mankind. How can you sustain an enlightened view of progress . What lincoln does is what jefferson believed would happen naturally but it didnt. Namely, the end of slavery. And coercion force was needed to do that. And that is a tragic failure from jeffersons perspective. The rupture of a union, let them go. How long would that last . Thats a tragic failure as well. Perhaps a greater failure, because at least if you preserved the shell of the union, perhaps it can rehabilitate itself. Perhaps free government can reemerge in the wreckage. Prof. Gallagher how upset do you think he would have been, he being jefferson, at some of the questionable constitutional actions that lincoln took in order to save the union that seemed at odds with the spirit and the letter of the constitution. Prof. Onuf there are two ways to think about it. The better way is to think about the way jefferson uses executive power it himself. And that is, jefferson does not fetishize the constitution. He doesnt say that my hands are bound because of the constitution. Because theres something greater than the constitution at stake, and that is the very existence of the United States of america. The first law of nature. And remember, i invoke natures god, natural religion, natural philosophy, the first law of nature is selfpreservation. The nation fails, the nation dies, then the constitution is a museum piece. You can put it on a shelf in the library and read it at your leisure, but its dead. Prof. Gallagher if we do not win the war, lincoln said, constitution Means Nothing. You think jefferson would have thought, ok, you have your priorities in order there . Prof. Onuf i think union looks different looking forward, looking back. So does the idea of the nation and i think its implicit in jeffersons thinking about the American People as being dedicated to liberty. Prof. Gallagher does jefferson link union and nation in his mind . By the time of the civil war , theyre deployed interchangeably. Nation country, United States, often in the same paragraph. They will drop all of them in. Prof. Onuf it is a wonderful question. It is hard to answer because the idea of a nation is implicit in the notion of popular sovereignty and selfdetermination. That is an idea of the people as an organic hole. A great family of families. I talked about the importance of family before. But by the time we get to lincoln and beyond this is the , great period of romantic nationalism, theres something about the nation as this organic hole that supersedes, subsumes individuals, it subsumes everything. Your identity is a national identity. It trumps everything else. Prof. Gallagher well, for some people. Prof. Onuf for some people prof. Gallagher for many people. Prof. Onuf we dont want to exaggerate it, because lincoln is not about to abolish states though he would love to abolish those Southern States, he believes in the federal distribution of authority. He believes in the compromises that were worked out in the constitution, all thats important to him. But the most important thing is the dedication to that shared principle, commitment to republican government, that makes us one people. Jefferson would be reluctant to make that final move toward that great super human thing, the nation. And we are libertarian americans hold on to notions that are at odds with that. Prof. Gallagher where would he have come down on the argument about the origins of the union does the union arise from the people . Does it arise from the colony states . Prof. Onuf im going to throw you another possibility. Prof. Gallagher fire away. Prof. Onuf all right well, enlightened philosophers, like jefferson are famous for looking , forward to a better future. But you cant look forward without looking backward. And when jefferson tried to define what liberty was, he looked that to the beginnings of time. He looked back to the saxons. He looked back to the original social contract. He also looked back to the British Empire, and this is my answer to you. And a couple kids that notion of states rights being foundational. Because the states are in the context of British Empire a joke. They are not independent polities. They are free riders on imperial protection. Americans love their kings. They are monarchists until theyre not. Until they become republicans, because their king is making war against them. What americans want, and i think this is the deep model for jeffersons commitment to union, what the americans want is their version of the British Empire. One in which you can have all ways. You can have local liberty, you can have courts responsive to local juries. You can determine land policy within your colony. You can determine labor systems within your colony. You have Trading Opportunities with the emporium of the planet. You are enriched by the imperial connection, and you are free riders on the collective security afforded by the military and naval might of the British Empire. Thats what you want. Only now youre going to call it something different. Youre going to call it republican, youre going to say, it doesnt come from any king it comes from us, the people. We can do this without the king. But the predicate of doing it without the king is to form a union among those former provinces. George washington prof. Gallagher im fascinated by all this, now, are you going to answer my question . [laughter] prof. Onuf are you accusing me of being unresponsive . Prof. Gallagher no, im accusing you of being yourself which is one of the things i really like about you. You often spin off in directions, and people wonder, prof. Onuf but that was good about the empire, right . [laughter] prof. Gallagher i was transfixing. Let me bring you back. If we put it to mr. Jefferson, whether the union derived from the people or from the states. Put it within those terms, were not in the empire any more weve already settled that. Prof. Onuf that, i think, is the template, and youll grant that. Prof. Gallagher ive already granted it. Prof. Onuf ok. And ill give you another answer. Prof. Gallagher youre on the clock. Prof. Onuf ive been talking about nature. Majors natures god. Prof. Gallagher ive been right here. [laughter] prof. Onuf all right then, thank you for being there for me. It is natures decree that this continent be the domain of this great, free people. Yes, the states are the instruments of rule, of land policy, of labor policy. They do the important things that we need to mystically, but we need a strong union so that we can dominate the hemisphere if not the world. We have to be strong and we have to be united to be strong. So the answer is both. It is a people that is a product of and relates to that great land and territory. This is let me coin this phrase, natures nation. Nation people, those are synonymous terms. Natures people. The first people in modern history, who conform this is hard for us environmentalists to take seriously, but the first people in modern history who have ruled themselves in accordance with natures laws and, therefore, have exploited the great riches available through the improvement of nature. Now, we think nature should be saved from improvers and developers. Because we have rather different ideas today about how gaia is at risk that great throbbing organism of which we are all a part of. Prof. Gallagher i thought we are part of the oversoul. Prof. Onuf youre so 1840s. [laughter] prof. Onuf do you find where im getting at that . To say people the American People, yeah, id say at the end of the day, jefferson would. I mean, he doesnt would say yes, the American People. Thats that was a short answer. [laughter] prof. Gallagher so once again he agrees with lincoln, or , lincoln agrees with him . Prof. Onuf i think so. Prof. Gallagher i want lets come back, you brought up Something Else i want to pursue, another thread i want to pull here. That is in terms of the union is going to expand. Its natural future would be expansionist. What would jefferson did jefferson believe that peoples who did not look like western europeans or englishmen could be brought in as functioning parts of the union . What would he have thought of incorporating all the people who lived in the half of mexico that the United States annexed in 1948 . Prof. Onuf i think it was a would have been a real problem for him, given the state of political and Civic Development and what we now call latin america, and he prof. Gallagher he wouldnt have said they were real republics even though they call themselves so . Prof. Onuf no. National selfdetermination, a kind of spurious for liberation faux liberation theres no capacity in those peoples, thats why he predicts there will be military dictatorships they are only used to prof. Gallagher long term spanish rule, catholic rule would make it impossible in his view. Prof. Onuf yes. And for north america, of course, the wonderful thing about north america, is that it was virgin land. As he says in his inaugural address. He says theres land enough for the thousands, to the south and thousands generation of americans out there. Its a blank space. Of course, he knows that youre going to have to displace a few indians, assimilate a few others. There are plenty of people out there. But in his vision, there is this an example inexorable progress of civilization against barberism and savagery submitting, subjecting the land to higher use. Yielding more from it. Whats more with native american societies is that they dont reproduce enough. They dont reproduce enough because native men spend all their time hunting and abusing their women. So theyll never move past that static, stable point of barbarism. The future is in the progress of civilization. This is what he embraces, and moving across the territory, hes not seized with the kind of collective guilt that comes with the red legend in america, the condemnation of indian lands and the genecide and destruction of native cultures that doesnt bother him. Prof. Gallagher he would have accepted territorial expansion into these kinds of places but then would have pushed for some kind of relocation of the populations . Prof. Onuf thats what happened. Andrew jackson implements. Prof. Gallagher i dont just mean in im speaking in terms of the acquisitions from mexico and other prof. Onuf i think he would say, and this is to give jefferson his due, he doesnt think that the other peoples of the world, less educated, less developed, maybe not with our exceptional qualities, thinking of americans as being really with the british. And after all, this is british america. He does think that the rest of the world one day could catch up. How it would do so, my guess is that he would suggest the emergence over time of confederations in all the populous areas of the world. The progress of republican government would be fitting, i mean, he survived long enough, lived long enough. Prof. Gallagher take a very long time. Even for the french Common People, he thought they were 200 years behind . Prof. Onuf that was his estimate. He said we are six years behind france. But as soon as they publish their books and send them across the ocean, well catch up. But our Common People, this is a vote for democracy, our Common People are 200 years ahead of their french counterparts. Prof. Gallagher forward republican prof. Onuf yeah. Well, they can be republicans, jefferson was not optimistic the french could create a republic and it seems they had trouble they created how many republics, five . [laughter] prof. Onuf so jefferson is both a universalist and an exceptionalist. Thats another thing we have to put into our paradox or contradiction we have to resolve. This is a people uniquely capable of governing themselves. In doing so, they demonstrate eternal truths about human nature and Human Potential that will be fulfilled in the fullness of time across the world. Prof. Gallagher liz baron talked about Andrew Johnson and the crisis of constitutionalism and impeachment. Andrew johnson called himself a jeffersonian. He said he loved jeffersonian theory about government. And the bedrock of that was a very small government, nonintrusive. Just did the minimum you would want that kind of government to do. Hes used by lots of people who take that view. Thats his union. His union is a union prof. Onuf well, the idea to take consent to its logical extreme. What does it mean . In some ways, enlightened people spontaneously form unions. Maybe to better understand it, we have to think about the scottish enlightenment moral philosophy. We have to think about moral sense. About the new account of human nature that comes out of the scottish enlightenment which is , remarkably democratic in its implications. That is, all of us have that kind of moral sense. Thats crucial for politics, for Understanding Society itself because what it means is that we do not have to be ordered, governed, and constrained to do the right thing. Maybe the epitome of this enlightenment hope for mankind kind of a joke now but the academy of it is the very idea of a market. Of transactions among equals to which all consent that are recently reciprocratally beneficial. When you think about the purity and the economists cant get over the purity of their account of the market, its a beautiful thing to behold. When has it ever existed in all its beauty, no, it doesnt. Only its its a fugitive thing, its an aspiration, a hope, but that idea that we could be drawn together. Not out of sordid selfinterest, this is where mandeville and those economists vulgarize the best of adam smiths moral philosophy we come together to achieve higher things, better things, not only for ourselves because the first coming together is to form the family for others, for those people who we raise, our children. And that i think is crucial, for jefferson is obsessed with generations, with the progress of generations. Things will get better over time. You cannot imagine that the rising generation would ever be less and lined then its predecessor. He cannot imagine that people can become ignorant and stupid and selfish. Prof. Gallagher im going to pick up on generations, one of the words used a minute ago. I want to bring in each of the other subjects of this lecture series. U. S. Grants was one of those subjects. This is what grant wrote on the great a compliment of accomplishment of the civil war. He said would save the union with the coming forward of the young men of the nation, from homes and fields, giving everything to the country. To their devotion, we owed the salvation of the union. So long as young men are animated by there will be no fear for the union. Where did jefferson put be citizen soldiers of the revolution in his calculus . Prof. Onuf theyre centrally important. The idea of the citizen soldier is very much a jeffersonian coinage. Of course he didnt fight the , war, he may not have thought citizen soldiers so credulously if he had been involved in the war more directly. Prof. Gallagher he could have asked his friend james monroe. Prof. Onuf yes, and hamilton was full of contempt for him because he didnt put his life on the line. Thats what we do. But jefferson in his inaugural address, which i think is the central document for understanding this political philosophy, talks about how the United States has and this is important for libertarians says the United States has the strongest government on earth which is a remarkable thing for him to say at a time when there are 2,000 people in the army and theres no great government in sight or out of sight. It doesnt exist. But he thinks it has enormous strength. What hes talking about again so much of the enlightened vision has to do with potential, what will happen. Its the fact that the revolution was a great moment of mobilization i think this is , what grant is evoking. Prof. Gallagher mobilization of the people. Prof. Onuf theres nothing stronger. Nothing more powerful than a United People at war to preserve those things that matter most to them. That would be their families thats why apple pie, motherhood, all those things those images of why we fight those homely images, thats what makes us powerful. Thats the vision that jefferson conjures up, and grant echoes. And its also, you could say, the technology of mobilization in the modern world, getting people to die for you. Mastered by the french, perhaps, in the first great war. But in the definition of modern war we now have the social , technology to get people out to do these things, we dont need to kill waste our own peoples lives, we can do it remotely with drones and things like that, that great force, though, comes from the people. Prof. Gallagher but the force grant is talking about is not a coerced force, hes talking about prof. Onuf hes not coerced, but it courses. Prof. Gallagher but it is not coerced. There is a draft later in their war. The majority of soldiers are volunteers. Revolution and putting them at the center of things. Prof. Onuf i think thats right, and its an interesting thing, the core of this enduring idea of National Power and greatness and liberty, it is people who will sacrifice everything. Prof. Gallagher and not be soldiers any more. Thats the key, theyre not really soldiers. Prof. Onuf they disappear, because a Permanent Military industrial prof. Gallagher its a problem. Prof. Onuf it can be to repeat this theme again captured, if its a technology, a toolan instrument that can be used by whoever has control of the government, then were all at risk, i think thats of course what we live with in the modern world, the capacity is now there, and the capacity is not that the young men will rise up, take their swords and go to war, the capacity now is much greater than that, and it doesnt rely even on our consents much less consent much less our participation. The image of the citizen soldiers, powerful one, we have to ask, and i think Many Americans today do ask, does it describe in any meaningful way who we are as a people today . Prof. Onuf prof. Gallagher this citizen soldiery is different. We have a professional military now, yes. And thats the antithisis of what grants talking about here. Prof. Onuf lincoln may have preserved and redeemed jeffersons union, by means that jefferson would have seen as a contradiction in terms but grant gives this notion of a peoples war, and if the people need to fight that war, i think this is the important thing, jefferson was perfectly willing to fight wars. You had to know who your enemies were. The most horrifying thing is that your enemies are your countrymen. And that was the thing that so Many Americans had difficult y with. Prof. Gallagher that was his war. Thats the revolution, and that is prof. Onuf the revolution they were fighting prof. Gallagher its the same theyre both civil wars. Prof. Onuf you need that to identify that thing against which youre fighting, whether its loyalists, these anglo americans who wouldnt give up on their kings. Cowards who shirked their duty and responsibility, or at least in the north for a while, you can demonize the slave holders for forcing this war on a libertyloving people. Prof. Gallagher the war of 1812, you could demonize new england . Prof. Onuf whoa prof. Gallagher you could. We said we were going to leave 20 minutes for questions at the end. Its 4 38 02 03 unless you have a parting thought prof. Onuf no. Too many parting thoughts. Prof. Gallagher they may come up in the course of questions. If you dont have any questions we will keep talking. Were capable of filling how much time we have. If you have a question, raise your hand and someone will appear with a microphone and put it in front of you. This is really problematic. Prof. Onuf mike, have you to ask the first question. Prof. Gallagher theres one right behind you. Oh, i have so many questions. Prof. Gallagher would you identify yourself . My name is michael. Im an ameritus professioner in the History Department. Ive been in the speaker series. The parallel you were trying to draw between lincoln and jefferson seems to me off base in this respect or maybe its because you didnt mention it at all in your presentation of jeffersons definition of republicanism. For lincoln and republicans of the 1850s, the basic principle of republicanism was the majority rules and the minority has to acquiesce. This is what lincoln said in his message to congress. You cannot just quit if you lose an election. What did jefferson think about the idea of majority rule which runs against equality . Prof. Onuf its a great question, its the mother principle of republican ism republicanism the majority of whom, and if its a national majority, to aggregate to bring in lincoln to the presidency it is interpreted as a move thats going to lead to the loss of liberty or rights on the state level. Those majorities on the state level will no longer be capable of enjoying and exercising their rights. In other words, its the assumption that and this was always a problem, its why you had to orchestrate the machinery of the federal system to make sure you never had Something Like this happen. That is, a lincoln. You had to achieve a kind of balance, which, of course, was a balance that favored slave holders. Lets be honest about it, you had to sustain that balance in order to sustain the illusion that this was the kind of union that the founders imagined. I was just thinking, you talk about the importance of jeffersons first inauguration dont you think that were all federalists, were all jeffersonians, the point is to tell the federalistic that you may have lost, but were no threat . Prof. Onuf worse than that, he says, the federalist, how does he define federalism in the rest of the address . He says, federalists are people who believe in states rights. He just turns it on its head. This is not conciliatory. He says we wont persecute the , leaders of the federalists well just make laughing stocks out of them. They will not they will lose their support. Majority rule is foundational. No question about it. Gary was alluding to this. Thats why i was so difficult to pin down on the states of people business. Thats the problem in a nutshell. Jefferson wants it both ways. The majority rule on all levels. Prof. Gallagher were expecting questions at some point that dont come from the department of history. But for now well have our second question. Im brian bellow and i direct the National Fellow ship here in the History Department at uva. And a cohost with peter, back story with the American History guys. Im getting in many more words this way. This way than the radio show. This is terrific. I want to take you back to your definition of federalism which begins with the family. Gary pressed you on the ability of jeffersons notion as union as it moves forward. I want to take you back to the family and jeffersons understanding of the relationship between a husband and wife, for instance. And his vision to how that would progress toward equality . Prof. Onuf it wouldnt. [laughter] i feel compelled to explain that answer. Jefferson was a selfdefined patriarch. The form of government at the family level is the form of government thats projected on to a whole kingdom. But it is confined as nature means it to be confined to the family where there is, according to nature, a division of labor. And just as there must be a single voice with respect to the larger world representing that unit, whether its a representative or the father. The father is the representative, he must have authority over his own domain. Theres a wonderful quotation from jeffersons writing in 1816 in which he talks about the series of from the ward to the county on up. But he goes backwards to the plantation or farm itself, where nobody has a right to interfere in the affairs of the farmer or planter on his own property. Dont mess with it, thats his way of protecting slavery. Thats the practical implication of it. But the principle is the principle this is the foundation, a foundation a Hard Foundation where theres no ambiguity about who rules as there is in modern families, instead its absolutely clear you can build on those rocks thats a solid foundation, and thats nature that decrees that in case you wondered. Prof. Gallagher over your left shoulder. I dont know if this is too close. Im class of 71. Is that still too close . Prof. Gallagher we think thats no, we think thats wonderful. Thank you. I wanted to get back tosome of to some of the original premises. Following on what brian said among other things, this notion that equality and coercion cant coexist, it strikes me that coercion can exist without equality. It further strikes me that equality cannot exist without coercion, that at some point the consensus is taken, somebody wins it, somebody loses and theres coercion. Going back to what brian said, it starts in jeffersons family and his world, the mail role the male role, and possibly his concept might include the tidewater of the piedmont, that was his country until he was a minister thats how he saw , himself. And i wanted you to take up the issue of male sufferage, we talked about how great it was to be white. Lets not assume for any moment that all whites had votes for the first 40, 50 years here, they had to have 100 acres or 25 acres and a house, sufficient so suffrage, coercion, and equality seem to go hand in hand ultimately in strengthening a union. Prof. Onuf that is expanding the sufferage. Absolutely. Jefferson sees the evolution of the electorate as moving toward sufferage. No question about it. His chief complain the is not chief complaint is not only that it lacks local selfgovernment. The tidewater is badly over represented. And to the extent that that is true, people in the piedmont and beyond are underrepresented and, therefore, under the thumb or rule. And he thinks that needs to be rectified. His progressive ideas about the evolution of the republican government include the broadening of the electorate, the expansion of the union, the creation of new states, which offers new opportunities for families to establish themselves. The abolition of hierarchies among equals, absolutely. A class of whites would be excluded. That is intolerable for him. Its not as if you can freeze frame that moment of 1776. Except to the extent the spontaneous outpouring of all men, many of whom couldnt vote. Thank you. Hi. I have nothing to do with the History Department or the university of virginia, other than my love for the center. [laughter] and our oldest son graduating from the university with a degree in english and history. But my question is, with regard to the civil war do you think for a moment that if we did not have it, the Southern State would eventually relinquish that problem because of the mechanization . Prof. Gallagher that problem being slavery . Yes. Prof. Gallagher no, i think we would have had the distinction of being the last western nation to get rid of slavery. We would have been after brazil, it was thriving, making the transition from cash crop agriculture into all other elements of the economy by the mid 19th century. It used to be a comforting notion that slavery was on its way out but it was not on its way out. Prof. Onuf you can tell by the price of slaves, the civil war and one of the problem ss was, problems was would , southerners be able to aspire to slave ownership . The price of slaves is the most sensitive indicator of the value, its literal value. I think its important to do to lincoln, his critic and fellow unionists with this vision of republican government, its not that it was normative in the 19th century, you could say things were moving in the other direction. Prof. Gallagher you could say it, because they were, they were moving in the other direction. Prof. Onuf you feel bad for the 20th century which you were responsible. The really nasty century is the 19th century. And, yeah. The big bad guys are the brits. Prof. Gallagher one measure one measure of the 1860 census is our wonderful friend that tells us all kinds of things about the United States in the 1860s. That census tells us that wealth in slaves was about 3 billion. Wealth in all manufacturing, all railroads put together in the United States was 2. 2 billion in 1860. The amount of wealth controlled by slave holders was unbelievably large in 1860. And the two wealthiest states per capita were South Carolina and mississippi. Which had in common they were the only states with an absolute majority of enslaved people in 1860. I mean, there slavery was not going anywhere in the United States. Prof. Onuf you know, the Insurance Companies have been apologizing, travelers and others, for having been implicated in the institution of slavery. They were selling Life Insurance to slave holders to insure their very valuable property. The wall street people would have been all over this, you know . This is not a this goes way back. And the 19th century gives us is moving toward racial hierarchy. Toward a conception of what kipling called white mans burden. That is in the 1890s that he coins that phrase. And that is this notion that the civilized, nordic types needed to exercise a paternal rule over darkerskinned people. The idea of natural rights maybe this is the key thing and the key point about lincoln and jefferson. An idea that comes out of the enlightenment and nearly dies at the hands of people like jeremy benttham and others who say, natural rights, nonsense upon stilts. Its all power, its all positive, its all what you can do and what you can enforce. That force youre talking about law is only good if you can back it up. And this is this is not a happy time. I where we have the race problem in america as americans understand it. What are you going to do with all these black people . Youve got the labor problem in britain. What do you do with all these massive numbers of irish people who are out of work . The misery of manchester. But of course, hardthinking realistic, 19th Century Progressive types say, thats just the price of the progress of civilization, which they had their own ways of measuring. Its really a pretty horrible century. And i guess the 20th centurys bad too, i know. Prof. Gallagher im not going to take much more of this attacking the 19th century. [laughter] ive about reached my limit. Youre going to make prof. Onuf natural rights prof. Gallagher youre going to make a plea for the 18th century for gods sake . Prof. Onuf im saying thats the claim you can make through lincoln is that you kept that idea alive of republican government and natural rights. All men are created equal. Thats nothing to us. I dont know what we make of it. But it meant a lot toward lincoln. Prof. Onuf when you lean toward me and point should i pay extra attention . [laughter] prof. Gallagher i was pointing over here, this guy over here. Heres one more question right here, then i think we will have reached our ending point. Martha williams, history major, but not history in new england. Ok, now my question is changing the subject. I learned something new today. I wasnt aware that jefferson had such a keen sensitivity to the fact that new england had towns. And less so down here. Prof. Gallagher yeah, definitely, town envy. Since we have such an urban rural divide in our country now id like you to address the idea of not only new england towns, but in your day that youre talking about serious urban culture clique. Urban culture. Philadelphia, big old boston most dynamic of all, the dutch influence in new york and the highly tolerant society. Its not as prevalent in the rural areas. And id like you to see what you can do about that. Prof. Onuf theres a lot of pathos in jeffersons beliefs in progress, moral progress economic development. Theres a nice exchange he has with his granddaughter ellen who travels to new england, as billy knows. And retraces a route that her grandfather had taken 30 years earlier in the company of james madison. When Northern New England was still pretty much a wilderness underdeveloped. Ellen went to these same areas and found it absolutely remarkable. The roads were good, the hotels were good. There was a church in every town. There were schools. It was the very image of the Republican Society fulfilled. And the contrast with jeffersons virginia at that moment, they commented on this. When you approached monticello it was as if you had to make it through these scruffy woods, through a kind of wilderness, it wasnt clear whether it had reverted to an overgrown area around monticello. You could look from monticello you would see you would see many farms. But you wouldnt see the kind of landscape, a republican landscape. And of course this was at the very time garys talking about, the prosperity of the institution of slavery. It left an ugly imprint on the land. Virginia itself at this period was probably best at producing slaves, better at producing slaves, than anything else. Because there was such a voracious appetite for slaves further to the south. This was not an image of republican progress. And yes, jefferson did understand and see this kind of urbanity. Its not big cities. Big cities are bad, theyre sick, nasty places to go to, youll die, theyre unhealthy. But a kind of a civic landscape, in many ways new england was perfect except for the new englanders. [laughter] prof. Gallagher thats right. And on that note id like to thank you all very much for coming out on a nasty day. You all had a hand out on your seats that tells you whats coming up in the 20th century, a a version a version of what weve been doing in the 19th century here. I hope you will attend all of those and remain good friends of the Miller Center and travel home safely. Thanks for coming. Thank you, peter. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] here are some of our featured programs for this Holiday Weekend on the cspan network here he tonight at 8 p. M. Eastern, former texas state senator wendy davis on the challenges facing women in politics. Easter sunday at 6 30 p. M. Eastern, jack necklace nicholas receives the congressional gold medal. Cornel w on the radical political thinking of Martin Luther king jr. E then bestselling author ronald kessler. He has written 20 books. On American History tv on cspan3, tonight at 8 p. M. Eastern, East Carolina University Professor Emeritus Charles Calhoun on the accomplishments made by Ulysses S Grant during his presidency. Sunday afternoon at 6 00, a historian takes us on a tour of appomattox courthouse in virginia. Each week americanness American History tvs reel amer ica brings you archival films that help tell the story of the 20th century. One of the greatest spy sagas in history reaches its climax. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg enter the Federal Building in new york to hear their doom. Mrs. Ethel rosenberg was convicted of actually transmitted the secrets transmitting the secrets to russia. The ring was uncovered. Mrs. Rosenbergs brother confessed to the secrets. He later became the governments chief witness in the prosecution of the rosenbergs. It is a stern judge of a face. After administering a tongue lashing in which he charged them with the imminent death of thousands of men, he sentenced both to death in the electric chair. At the time these pictures were made greenblatt still had to hear his fate. It is