It will tell you every vote recorded for every office, from local dot catcher to the president of the United States, up until the 18 twenties. It will give every candidate. Whether the candidate is known anywhere outside his own family. If he got a vote, hes on that list on the website. Explore that, its fascinating. Its fascinating. You have to love our audience. They are better than google. What the day. . They have an answer about one of the questions. This is about the Church Services that were moved to statutory hall. You the first catholic to preach in the capital was the bishop of north and south carolina. He preached there on january 8th, 1826 for two hours. While. Now you know something that you didnt know. I would bet thats an episcopalian bishop and not a catholic bishop. It says the first catholic according to shane mccarthy. Mccarthy should know, right . He put his name behind it, so im just putting it out there. I buy it. Chuck, i think a couple of people asked about your book. Could you just hold it up again so people can see it . My baby. There, this is the book. It is available through the United StatesCapital Historical Society in if you go to our website, there is a sharp feature. You can get all kind of wonderful memorabilia of the capital. We have christmas ornaments made with marble from the capital, but we have fine books like checks books. If you want to get the book, come join us. If you want to be part of the continuing exploration of capital history, we hope you become a member and a supporter of the capitol historical society. Thank you very much. We appreciate. Check, we appreciate the depth of your knowledge. Sure. It was fun, thank you. Thank you. Take care. Byebye. Up next, the National Constitution center host a discussion on congress, Political Parties and polarization. From the time of americas founding through the civil war and today. This event took place on line due to the coronavirus. The National Constitution center provided the video. And now it is a great honor to introduce our guests. What an amazing panel. Americas most distinguished historians and scholars of congress to help us understand our current vacations. Edward ayers his tucker boat right professor of humanities and professor americas at the university of richmond. He is the author of many books on the civil war and reconstruction, including, and i will just highlight one of his many awardwinning books, the thin light of freedom, the civil war and emancipation in the heart of america. He discussed at the National Constitution center in 2017. His forthcoming book is southern journey, the migrations of the american south, 1790 to 2020. Edward ayers, welcome. It is a pleasure to have you. My pleasure, thank you. Joanne freeman this professor of American History and american studies at yale university. She specializes in the politics and political culture of the revolutionary and Early National periods. She is cohost with edward ayers of the popular American History podcast, back story. Its great to unite these coal pot castors together. She is the author of many books as well. Pat breaking, affairs of honor, National Politics in the new republics. As well as field of blood, violence in congress and the road to the civil war. Joanne, it is such an honor to have you with us. Thanks for having me. Norman ornstein is residents collar at the American Enterprise institute where he studies politics, elections and the u. S. Congress. His books include one nation after trump, a guide for the perplexed, the disillusioned, the desperate and the not yet departed. I love your titles. The next one we did at the Constitution Center and it depressed us before we began the program. Its even worse than it looks, how the american constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism. Very relevant for tonight as well, the broken branch, how congress is failing america and how to get it back on track. Hes a friend of the center and speaks frequently in our programs. Norm, great to have you back. Always a pleasure. Let us jump right in to the history of the violence that consumed the nation in general and congress in particular in the years leading up to the event to the civil war. Joanne, we will begin with you because your book, field of blood, described so vividly. The statistics you speak about our so striking. Between 1830 and 1860, you write that there were more than 70 violent incidents in the congress, senate house and Senate Chambers or in the streets and doing rounds. It was not confined to congress. Between july and october alone, there were 109 riots nationwide. Is it true there was more violence then, in congress in particular, but also in the nation in general as there is now . Why was it . And give our audience a sense how violence Violent Congress was. Sure. To answer the question first, this will be an obvious thing to say, but congress is a representative institution. So it does very much reflect the ethos of the time and the fact of the matter is, the first half of the 19th century as well as the second half were very violent. Some of the violence that you are seeing in congress is really representative of that moment. What i was interested in and what really drew my attention was the amount of it and the dynamic of it. You were discussing the years leading up to the civil war. It is worth noting the violence, or at least the extreme violence, really begins in the 18 thirties. Its not a constant wave. Its sort of comes and goes. What is the thirties and forties and fifties that see these incidents. What is interesting and logical is, if you track who is fighting who, initially you see one party finding another and then overtime, you see north versus south and slavery is at the center of the fighting. What struck me is interesting most of all and what really shows violence as a tool in the Antebellum Congress is southerners knew that they had an advantage to a certain degree because they were willing to dual. They were more willing to engage in hand to hand combat than some of the northerners. They used that advantage on the floor. They used it as a tool of debate. They would deliberately intimidate and threaten northern congressman and some of them would silence themselves or sit down or not stand up rather than risk either that threat or being humiliated in front of the public by being threatened and having to back down before it. Violence is shocking by itself, but what is particularly shocking is that it was a deliberate tool of debate. Over time, what happens is that by the 18 fifties, some northerners decide they can in be their tool to. That is such a powerful turn in the book when you describe how the decision of northerners to challenge southerners to duels actually decreased the violence. You quote from that remarkably moving letter which you sent moved to tears, when representatives Wade Chandler and cameron all pledged to challenge future jewelers to fight. When it became known that some southern senators were ready to fight, the abuse went on. I finally have to say that we have a wonderful in new exhibit on reconstruction. We have that yes stephens as cain. I quote your book when i tell the story about how some people would run for congress during that period on the grounds that my left hook is better than the other guy. I will beat him up because im tougher. He would bring that to life. Incredibly powerful. Norm ornstein, its often said or at least it has been said by nor brett mccarthy, whos a scholar at princeton, that we are more polarized today that and any time since the civil war. Youre such an expert of the party systems. Can you explain what it was about the Political Parties right before the civil war that led us to be so polarized then . You go back through history and we see echoes of so many of the divisions that are familiar to people today. If you look at the period leading up to the civil war, the party system, it was very much in flux. We had a wig party that ultimately was became and transformed into the modern Republican Party. Along the way, we had a know Nothing Party which was virulently anti immigration. The ire and focus was on catholics and some elements of northern europeans. They actually had a president elected on the no nothing ticket. Ultimately, it became the two parties that we know today or that we think we know today. Democrats and republicans. Of course, we have that overarching issue of race and slavery and the party struggled with that. For a while, the Democratic Party actually had a pretty strong pro, or and the slavery leaning. Others in the party, copper heads, who voted in a different way. It of course should down into a republican with Abraham Lincoln as the president. He became the force in the party against slavery. We will talk about how things changed in the aftermath of the assassination of lincoln and what changed with the reconstruction period. All of those things, which were life and death issues to so many, really created a level of polarization in the society that broke down obviously along regional lines. Those regional divisions continued to persist, but not necessarily in the same way as the parties change. The Democratic Party, which became a more dominant party many decades later, had a merger of southern and northern democrats. Those deep divisions that were there, the polarization and the society, the polarization of the parties, mccarthy is right. What we see now is something far more distinct than what weve seen since any period. Thats fascinating. Your teaching that the party system during the civil war period mirrored the polarization in society. That nicely reinforces joannes point that the violence in congress mirrored the violence in society. Yes. Ed, your book, the thin line of freedom, argues powerfully at every step that those who would advance freedom found themselves challenged and sometimes defeated. As history shows however, black freedom advanced faster and further than its champions dream possible because the opponents of freedom proved so powerful and aggressive. Tell us how it was that with each victory of the armies of the south that provoked northern support for abolition ism. Its an important story. If you could take us from the post civil war period through reconstruction, tell us about how the party system realign and the country became less polarized as support for reconstruction was ultimately abandoned. As norman was saying, the polarization inside the parties, between democrats and republicans. People would say democrats lost, they only have 47 of the vote. I think we have seen in our own time, that half the electorate doesnt just go away when they lose. In 1864, 10,000 votes indifferent is tricks would have given the election to the democrats. After all the suffering of the civil war. We forget that for a couple of burial its, Abraham Lincoln might not have been reelected. That northern difference is there. Northern democrats were as racist as white southerners and hated everything the republicans were doing. The war ends and the white south says weve lost. But in the meantime, lincolns election, Andrew Johnson becomes president , he seems to cut some slack for the white south. Great, lets push for everything that we can get. Lets put those black coats in there so we can reinstitute as much slavery as possible before the republicans come back into congress. Right now, that its quiet and the president is running everything. This also kind of sounds familiar to. Lets do what we can with this president. When republicans come back in, after riots in new orleans and memphis and widespread violence against black people across the south, republicans say we cannot have lost 350,000 men for this. We must restore the purpose of the war. The white south is just running roughshod. You white south keeps pushing and pushing nor the republicans say, okay, its going to take an amendment to the constitution that you have to support. You are going to have to allow black man to vote and to be delegates for those conventions in order to rewrite your constitutional before you can come back in. Youve shown us that you are not sorry at all. You admit that you were defeated, what you do not admit that you were wrong. You have congressional commissions that go out and talk to people across this up and say, what we are looking for is rebelism. The spirit that, even though they lost, they are still the rebels. The patterns that we still see playing out today where theyre. Im not giving up my heritage. Im holding on to this ice identity. As a result, you wouldnt have had the 14th amendment if the republicans had not felt that, if they did not revise the fundamental law of the land, the democrats of the north were going to join the white southerners and take away what was one with such loss during the civil war. That is what i mean by that. The 15th amendment because, we mean it, you cant take away the vote. Reconstruction begins ending almost as soon as it begins. In virginia, it ends by 1870. There are textbooks with the number 1877 in our head. But reconstruction begins to end in 1870 and 1871. Drenched in violence as well. The white south brings in the fundamental change in law recognizing that if you are a native born american, you have fundamental rights. That is a result of white southern recalcitrance. After reconstruction comes to an end, the United States settles into a pattern that is going to follow for a long time. Very closely contested elections with the south largely democratic. The north in the west republican. Those are the most closely contested or finally calibrated elections in American History. All during the period where people think nothing is happening. That its boring. In fact, the votes of a few thousand here in their could change the outcome. So its a fundamental restructuring, but the commonality from what joanne, norm and i are saying is, polarization seems to find a way to happen no matter the situation. Winner take all, two parties, us and them are shifting, but there seems to be a polarizing impulse in american political culture. So interesting. Thank you for all of that. What an important point. That it was the fear of losing the gains of the civil war that led the supporters of the 14th amendment to want to embody it in the constitution. We told a story about the debate between Teddy Stevens and he said will have the majority forever. He said we might lose it. You describe how that happened for so many of the gains of reconstruction. Warning that the losers may not go away gracefully is also very pressured and sobering. Joanne, we have a bunch of questions from our friends to you. Howard green says, when northerners are willing to fight back and southerners stop challenging, is that like facing up to a bully . What we also have a question about whether any numbers members of congress were trying to reach across the aisle during this time . A question about whether, in the prewar era, slavery was a catalyst of the civil war. Does any of that same provocative to you . Sure. The first question about the northerners and southerners. I would say the southerners dont stop biting, they are just sort of thrown off their feet. The northerners who have been caving in all along, suddenly, there are northerners fighting back. The word bully that is asked in the question is right on target. Thats the word that people use at the time for the people who are provoking these fights. Bully brooks, Preston Brooks who attacks charleston or, that was his nickname. Thats a word that is applied to people throughout this period. There was a sense that these people before the second half of the 18 fifties, that southerners were picking on people who could be bullied because they could not fight back in the same way. What that happens is that these northerners come. The northern congressman, they were campaigning on the idea that they were going to fight the slave power. Theres a reality to that in congress they meant it. Some of them came with weapons and literally made it clear. The document that you mentioned that i will confess made me sort of thierry, these three northerners explain why they will now agree to duel from now on. The part that really captured me is at the end, after describing this with all this emotion, they say we are putting this down on paper so future generations will understand how hard it was to fight slavery on the floor of congress. They make clear precisely what im trying to describe in the book. It is bullying, what happens when youre being bullied . I suppose this is a sort of simple answer. If you stand up to a bully, that sometimes a useful thing to do. I will also mention briefly the aisle question. Where theyre not people reaching across the aisle . They are were. After an amount of time, it became hard to do. You can see the mere hint at a certain point in the 1850s, that someone would reach across the aisle for someone else, is sometimes met by mockery. They will joke, but the joke will be you do that i think when congressman says to another, you do that and you better tell your kids to put their sunday best on because theyre never going to see you again. There were some people trying. Strikingly to me, people reaching across the aisle off the floor. They couldnt do it on the floor, in the public eye, with the press watching. So they removed themselves from congress and try to do it in a separate space. But by that point, those are not issues that can be compromised. Compromise is only possible sometimes in private during the constitutional convention. When everything is tweeted in realtime or when the press is watching during the civil war, that is more difficult. Completely fascinating. , norm, there is a series of questions Everyone Wants to talk about the president , and we will, but we have to learn our history at the same time. That is why im not jumping into modern questions right away. Many of our friends are asking, why is Incoming Congress standing up