We would like to thank mr. Schwartz for all of his support which has enabled us to reduce a wide array of willie wonderful programs. What we give him a hand. Of course our board of trustees has been really active and really helpful in bringing this institution to the level it is today we have a trustee who is with us today in the audience. All of our Chairmans Council member with us for their great work and support. Tonights program is going to last one hour and include questionandanswer since june. The q a will be conducted via written questions on note cards and you should have received something from one of our volunteers in the audience who note cards and pencils. And i will be going through, as soon as im done with introduction i will go through and collect cards as well. I will hand out to anyone who did not receive one on the way in. Also tonight after the on stage talk the speakers will be signing books for us in our ny history store on our 77th street side of the building and the books will be there available for purchase. We hope youll join us for that. Tonight we are thrilled to welcome back to our stage eric phone eric foner he has served as president of three major historical associations the organization of the american historians, American Historical Association abalso the author of numerous books on the history of Race Relations in america and has been awarded the Pulitzer Prize in bancroft prize in 2015 the American History book prize right here at New York Historical society for his book gateway to freedom. His newest book was released a couple weeks ago is the second founding, how the civil war reconstruction remade the constitution. Her moderator this evening its a great pleasure to welcome back monisha adraper chair in American History at the university of connecticut and them melons for us and your fellow at the Radcliffe Institute at harvard university. She is the author of numerous books on slavery and the Abolitionist Movement including her most recent the slaves caused a history of abolition which was long listed for the National Book award for nonfiction and winner of the guilder lemon center Frederick Douglass prize. Shes also written for numerous publications including the New York Times, huffington post, boston globe and Washington Post before we begin i would like to say if you can silence cell phones anything that makes a noise and they also realize i forgot to mention the name of our wonderful trustees in the audience, clean athank you to trustees for all the wonderful work they do for us. Join me in welcoming our guests. [applause] thank you alex for that very nice introduction for both of us. Id like to welcome all of you to our Public Program on the second founding, how the civil war and reconstruction remade the constitution by ericy eric foner. Of course hes an american historian and you already heard the accolades he has won. But i thought i would also introduce him today with a contemporary description of the radical republican congressman Thaddeus Stevens of pennsylvania doing reconstruction. I just came across it so it struck me as very appropriate. The observer said over 70 years of age he was not attended with any acceptable abatement of the intellectual vivacity fire of youth. [laughter] i thought it was an appropriate introduction. This is in fact a historical quote and can be verified. Let me begin with a question i think most authors get, you eric have written already what is commonly called the bible of reconstruction. What motivated you to write this book on the reconstruction constitution amendment . Before answering that i should say im very happy to be here back at the Historical Society and particularly to have monisha as the interrogator today. She didnt quite mention it but when i supervised heard doctoral dissertation at columbia quite a few years ago now and she did get her phd there. This is her chance to get back at me because i was on her orals exam. Now she has a chance to ask me questions. Why did i write this book . You are right, of course ive written a lot of the reconstruction, im not a law scholar, im not a legal historian, im not a lawyer, although some my best friends are. I often write books because i get slightly annoyed about the way scholarship is developing without going into earlier books, and in this case over the years i became convinced that our Supreme Court doesnt fully understand the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments. And even in our own time and let tenant 19 centuries they really eviscerated them but even in a long time they havent used these amendments and the way they have intended to combat Racial Injustice in the society. So why not just tell Supreme Court they are all wrong. [laughter] and maybe one or two of them will listen. In that way its sort of ab but also there is a debate among historians about what i felt was going into somewhat uninteresting direction about where these Court Decisions based on racism, federalism, both . Theres a certain narrowness without denigrating legal scholarship at all its very important but this narratives the vision of the evidence is already seen in speeches in congress or maybe editorials in new york tribune things like that. Court decisions. But the sort of fast debated reconstruction about citizenship that was a moment when all these issues had been debated up and down the society and the courts in the pulpits at every fireside. You got to bring on the americans into the base. Particularly African Americans who voices almost never heard in the Supreme Court rulings or in a lot of the literature. I thought there was a gap out there i would try to fill. The book you talk about reconstruction amendments is called the Lasting Legacy of reconstruction. Between your course of reconstruction in the period of the war when attempt was made to establish interracial democracy in this country. It was met with a combination of racial terror, legal and political apathy and reaction. I was just wondering how you saw this concept that this was a Lasting Legacy when in that period itself proved to be relatively shortlived. We often say with certainly a good argument, reconstruction failed. And theres perfectly good evidence to say that. But if we start with that premise and work backwards then its hard to work back, why did it fail . What was the problem maybe they should have been on land or messed up on this thing . We dont actually see that it didnt all fail and the fact that these amendments were added to the constitution and remained in the constitution until today they are still there even though President Trump as indicated he like to get rid of the at least the sentence of the 14th amendment is a sign that the impulse toward interracial democracy didnt totally fail. Obviously reconstruction is about many things. Most of those things get discussed in constitutional terms at one point or another. Many other things the establishment of black they survived they didnt all fail. Still have black colleges today and found it in reconstruction. The black Church Becomes a really Major Institution in reconstruction in the center of those communities. The very idea of it interracial democracy even though the implementation date to inspire subsequent struggles. Thats when the Civil Rights Era was sometimes called the second reconstruction. The issues on the agenda right after the civil war . But i think the constitutional amendments are important even though they were kind of notified in many ways around the turn of the century the fact that they were there any usable was really determined the legal strategy of the civil rights revolution. I agree. I dont like to tell failure i always like to say reconstruction all is overthrown. Because theres a Real Campaign to overturn the score. So you also visualize this period as second founding thats the title of the book. That has to do with these constitutional amendments and the ways in which black citizenship is actually touchstone to the new founding moment. Im going to go back and look at those three specific amendments that you discuss in the book. I was wondering if you want to talk a little bit about something that has gotten a lot of attention recently. That is criminal exceptions in the 13th amendment. Can you tell us a little bit about how this exception became part of the amendment, and its tragic unforeseen consequences . Me take out my constitution here. [laughter] 13th amendment, just what is she talking about . Neither slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime so is this exist in the United States. Involuntary servitude can continue for people convicted of a crime. Theres a lot of literature on the 13 amendment nobody has written about this. There is books on the 13 amendment that tony did mention it in the slightest. Thats not so surprising. It wasnt mentioned in congress hardly. The press debate about the 13 amendment said virtually nothing about the dangers involved in allowing servitude for those who had been convicted of a crime. So where did it come from . The language, as was widely declared. Came from the northwest ordinance. I called up a couple my good friends they both gave the same answer. I havent the slightest idea. [laughter] and we dont actually know but the real point is, it had the boilerplate language the thing that people never mention is every Northern State that barred slavery included that phrase. It was familiar language that will not proviso manning slavery in territories acquired from mexico in the mexican war included that criminal exemption. This has become to get a lot of attention because there was this documentary a few years ago. That sort of had a slightly conspiratorial edge that this was put in there in order to anticipate mass incarceration. There were hardly any prisons back then. This was not supposed to be the basis of a giant system. But it created this unfortunate loophole which was later at the end of the reconstruction Southern States created this giant labor system. People mostly black were convicted of stealing a chicken and they are sentenced to eight years in the penitentiary and then they are leased out to work on a plantation or railroad or mine and it became a horrifying system. One of the books is called worse than slavery. Because of the conditions were so horrible. The courts always said this is allowable because the 13th amendment has this exemption. One of the points were thinking about is a lot of people talk about original meaning, original intent conservative view of how to interpret the constitution. Here you have an unintended consequence nobody anticipated what would happen that has really undermined some of the purposes of the 13th amendment. I think thats one of the really important and valuable contributions of this book to look at this as something that was customary that no one thought about and there was no conspiracy to undermine black freedom but the southern politicians saw that pole and worked it. He wanted to get back to the history we live in a time where conspiracy theories are right. Its probably good to have facts straight on that. So if you of course argue in this book i have argued earlier to that the 14th amendment is the most consequential. I would like you to talk more about that. Especially given the fact that you mentioned earlier some others want to revoke its provision of national birthrights. At one point i want to make to start with is that professor cinda in her book a great book on the Abolitionist Movement to quote you what she says abolitionist hitch their star to black citizenship all that was a crucial question, not the civil war. Slaves were not citizens, what about free africanamericans. The white people born in the country were deemed to be citizens of the civil war. It was little question about that. What their rights of citizens were unclear. What about free african and African Americans and citizens of the state. Many states they said citizenship is for what will, no black person can be a citizen of the United States. It was a law of the land when the civil war took place. With the freeing of 4 million slaves to Service Black soldiers in the civil war that question is on the agenda in the first sentence of the 14th amendment says anybody born in the United States is a citizen. And with no racial qualification whatsoever. No qualification to any religion or race or background and relevant today it has nothing to do with the status of your parents. An undocumented immigrant woman who gives birth to a child in the United States with the status of that show is clearly a boy the fact that their mother may have committed a crime is irrelevant. The mother could be a bank robber. That would mean the child can be a citizen. The 14th moment goes beyond that its the longest amendment added to the constitution. It has all sorts of convoluted provisions. Some of it has no particular relevance today like the confederate debt cant be repaid. We talk about reparations they put in the 14th amendment is never to be any payment to the owners. No ones going to get paid for the loss of their properties. In other provisions but the first section is the key which first creates this birthright citizenship. And then the states came out cannot deprive any citizen of the privileges or immunities of citizens whatever those are it doesnt tell you. And then that no person, more than a citizen, thats anybody, not just citizens, noncitizens have to be afforded equal protection of the law. That is the pivot of the 14th amendment. Equal protection. The notion of equality is so deeply ingrained in the United States at least in our ideology that women we may not realize theres no such thing as in the civil war. The word equal is not in the original constitution except for talking about what happens if two candidates get an equal number of electoral votes. This notion of equal protection and its not racial and this applies to everybody. And the fact that the language is nonracial has allowed in the 20th century the expansion of equality to all sorts of groups and most recently famously gay marriage. Thats 1 14 amendment decision. Equal protection. That is why i called the second founding. You have a new constitution after these three amendments. Another reason i wrote this book is even those amendments are so important, most people dont know much about them. What are what are the key documents of American History. John bingham is hardly a household name. In his hometown in ohio, there was no recognition. He was more responsible than almost anyone for rewriting the constitution of the United States. Absolutely. He has a one that gave bill of rights. We should know this guy. You are right. I think this legacy and the ways in which it has been used is for a lot of people. This is kind of a Sleeping Giant in the constitution. The irony is, it has enormously expanded the right of every american. When it comes to racially quality, since nixon began with conservatives and adopting the strategy, the court has whittled away at the use of the 14th amendment. They are more attuned to what they call reverse discrimination white people somehow protection. A vast expansion. Narrowing at the same time when it comes to what was on the same mind of the people debating this in congress. Just a followup, there is a villain in this history of the reconstruction amendment. The Supreme Court. There are a lot of villains in the reconstruction story. More about the Supreme Court. We reconstructing. Another thing i wanted to do with this book was, in a way, allude to the president. The right to vote, right to vote, terrorism, these are issues, not just just 150 years old. I am alluding to the present, i am not writing a commentary on today, but what happens to your rights when you have a conservative Supreme Court. What happens to these amendments really starting reconstruction with the slaughterhouse decision. Going all the way into the 20th century as a warning. Not self enforcing. If you have a hostile Supreme Court, they can do tremendous damage to the expansion of liberty. Why did the Supreme Court do that . Public opinion in the north was shifting away. The reconstruction et cetera. One of the things that surprised me is i dont think that that is really true. Many of these decisions were renounced by Republican Leaders by the republican press. We historians have a tendency that we like people will like us you get a lot of quotes from the chicago tribune. The new york tribune. Washing the hands of reconstruction. They did not like any of these measures. They thought that the court was doing the right thing. If you if you go to mainstream Republican Newspapers which may not have been educated by college people, they were all aghast by some of these decisions. I do not think you can let the Supreme Court off the hook by saying public opinion. You have to look at who they are. Most of the Supreme Court justices are, you know, know