Reconstruction & America's Story, October 6, 2022, C-Span 3

 “Reconstruction & America's Story”, October 6, 2022, Kermit Roosevelt esq., Lectures in History, Book TV C-Span 3,  Video Duration 1:05:51, at                                                   < Reconstruction and America's Story>  The transcript, a compilation of uncorrected closed captioning and of less than stellar quality, is also posted here below.  This first and most recent talk, by Kermit Roosevelt 3rd lasts less than 50 minutes, followed by around 10 minutes of questions from the law students in the class where it was presented.  It is a greatly shortened presentation of ideas Roosevelt discussed in his June 2022 book, The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America's Story.  An previous appearance by Kermit Roosevelt esq, on C-Span's Book TV, presented an earlier iteration of the same ideas; as he was working on them before he published his book.  That earlier talk is available as “Rethinking America's Founding Narrative”, “The Constitution and Declaration of Independence: A Contrary View,” March 3, 2020, Kermit Roosevelt esq., Book TV C-Span 3, Video Duration 1:46:22, at < Rethinking America's Narrative>.  The transcript for that talk is posted below the transcript for the law school class lecture.

~~ recommended by dmorista ~~

Introduction by dmorista:  This interesting talk was presented during a regular classroom lecture by Kermit Roosevelt esq., the great great grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, at the University of Pennsylvania Law School where he is a faculty member. It advances a  theory that The Declaration of Independence and the 1787 Constitution were actually supportive of the Confederacy and its slave regime.  Roosevelt further posits that it was not until the Reconstruction period that the first real steps, toward a much more inclusive democratic system, were taken.  In this talk Roosevelt discusses the ideas, that he presented in much greater detail in his recent book The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America's Story.  He posits that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution provided for a system of insiders (white people) and outsiders (African American Slaves, the indigenous people, any other non-whites).  Whites were most strictly defined as British and other Northern European people.  Roosevelt defines insiders who were specifically protected by the 1787 Constitutional system, namely they are White Men who owned property, and who were specifically given the right to vote and otherwise participate in the political life of the early U.S.  The other insiders, White Men without significant amounts of property and White Women, were not specifically protected but were allowed to work politically within the original Constitutional system.  Outsiders, African American Slaves, the indigenous people, any other non-whites, had absolutely no standing whatsoever in the original Constitutional / Declaration of Independence system.

It is notable that Roosevelt provides an interesting and provocative set of ideas without much in the way of class based analysis.  Working with his basic ideas and adding a good dose of class-based analysis would only strengthen these arguments. It is also worth noting that Roosevelt's grandfather, Kermit Roosevelt the first, was the on-the-ground coordinator of the CIA / MI-6 sponsored Coup in Iran in 1953.  Also present in Iran at that time was Major General Norman Schwarkopf, the father of general “Stormin' Norman” Schwarkopf Jr., the commander of the U.S. attack on Iraq in the Desert Storm and Desert Shield operations 1991, and earlier pressure operations, from 1988 - 1991, that preceded the actual invasion.

------------------------------------------------------------------

“Reconstruction & America's Story”, October 6, 2022, Kermit Roosevelt esq., Lectures in History, Book TV C-Span 3,                                                                   at < https://www.c-span.org/video/?523455-1/reconstruction-americas-story >

(University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Kermit Roosevelt, who teaches Constitutional law, asserted that modern America traces its political sentiments to Lincoln and the Reconstruction era, rather than the Founding Fathers and the Revolution. Kermit Roosevelt is the great great grandson of Theodore Roosevelt.)

The link for Youtube for Kermit Roosevelt's talk looks like this at C-Span 3.

Transcript for the Lecture at the University of Pennsylvania Law School Class: Note this is the uncorrected transcript produced by using unedited closed captions from the Television Broadcast.  This is not a particularly smooth or polished text, but it is what is available.

HI AND WELCOME TO TODAY'S. SO IN LESS THAN AN HOUR I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE ARGUMENT OF BOOK. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU NEW WAY OF THINKING ABOUT AMERICAN AND AMERICAN IDENTITY. LET'S START WITH THE OLD WAY, WHICH IS WHAT I CALL THE STANDARD STORY. THE STANDARD STORY TELLS. US AMERICAN HISTORY STARTS IN 1776 WITH THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE DECLARATION ARTICULATES THE FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN OF EQUALITY WITH THE STARTLING NEW PROPOSITION THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL AND THE AMERICAN PATRIOTS FIGHT FOR THAT IDEAL AND THE REVOLUTION. THEY MAKE IT PART OF OUR HIGHER LAW IN THE CONSTITUTION WRITTEN IN 1787 AND OUR SINCE THEN HAS BEEN A MORAL LESS STEADY PROGRESS TOWARDS REALIZING THIS IDEAL. NOW THE STANDARD STORY ADMITS WE'VE FALLEN SHORT, BUT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD. AND YOU CAN LOOK AT KEY MOMENTS IN AMERICAN HISTORY, WHERE AMERICANS COME TOGETHER IN THE NAME OF THIS IDEAL AND IT GUIDES US FORWARD. 1776 OF COURSE WITH THE DECLARATION 1863 WITH THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS. WHEN LINCOLN TELLS US THAT AMERICA IS DEDICATED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. IN 1963, WHEN LUTHER KING CALLS ON US TO RISE UP, LIVE OUT THE TRUE MEANING OF THAT PHRASE. SO THAT'S OUR FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE GUIDING US SINCE THE BEGINNING. THREE IMPORTANT STRUCTURAL POINTS THIS STORY. BEFORE I START, LOOK AT IT MORE CRITICALLY. THE FIRST IS IT LOOKS BACK. IT SAYS OUR IDEALS THERE AT THE VERY BEGINNING. IN 1776 THOMAS JEFFERSON TOLD US WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN AMERICAN. SECOND, IT'S A STORY. THIS IDEAL GUIDES US THROUGH THE OF OUR HISTORY. AND THIRD, IT'S A STORY OF CONTINUITY. IT SAYS WE ARE CONNECTED TO THE FOUNDERS BY THIS IDEAL, BY OUR CONTINUED ADHERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DECLARATION DECLARATION. AS LINCOLN SAYS, IT'S THE ELECTRIC CORD THAT LINKS US OVER, THE GENERATIONS. WE ARE THE SAME THAT WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN. NOW, WHY DOES THIS STORY MATTER? WELL, NATIONAL STORIES ARE IMPORTANT. NOT EVERY NATION HAS IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE DO. BUT WE NEED ONE MORE THAN OTHER COUNTRIES TO MAYBE. SO WE USE THIS IDEA OF AN AMERICAN IDENTITY. THAT'S ROOTED IN VALUES, NOT IN BLOOD, NOT IN GEOGRAPHY. TO BRING US TOGETHER TO INSPIRE US, MAKE SACRIFICES IN THE NAME OF OUR SHARED IDEALS. SO IT'S IMPORTANT HAVE AN AGREED UPON UNDERSTANDING OF WHO WE ARE. OF WHAT OUR VALUES ARE. OF WHO ARE THE HEROES AND VILLAINS OF OUR STORY. AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO BE GOOD AMERICANS. AND THIS STANDARD STORY WORKED, AT LEAST FOR SOME PEOPLE, AT LEAST FOR A WHILE. BUT IT'S NOT WORKING ANYMORE. AND THE MAIN REASON IT'S NOT WORKING IS THAT IT'S NOT VERY ACCURATE. SO SOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CHALLENGING IT DEMANDING THAT IT BE TOLD MORE. BUT AS IT GETS MORE ACCURATE. IT GETS LESS INSPIRING. AND THIS THE CONFLICT THAT WE'RE SEEING PLAY OUT ACROSS THE COUNTRY NOW WITH, THE SO-CALLED ANTI CRITICAL RACE THEORY BILLS. THIS IS WHY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE BANNING THE DISCUSSION OF CERTAIN TOPICS, WHY THEY'RE BANNING CERTAIN BOOKS. BANNING THE 1619 PROJECT, FOR INSTANCE. THEY'RE TRYING TO PROP UP THE STANDARD STORY. AND THE CLEAREST PROOF THIS IS ABOUT THE STANDARD STORY IS MAYBE A FLORIDA LAW THAT IS NOT A YOU CAN'T SAY THIS KIND OF LAW, BUT A, YOU MUST SAY THIS KIND OF LAW. AND WHAT MUST TEACHERS SAY VERY CLEARLY IT'S THE STANDARD STORY. THIS FLORIDA LAW SAYS AMERICAN HISTORY SHALL TAUGHT AS THE DEVELOPMENT A NATION BASED ON THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND ACTUALLY BANS MY BOOK. THEY HAVEN'T MENTIONED ME BY NAME YET. BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A LIST OF BANNED BOOKS, I'M BANNED IN FLORIDA. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? THIS STORY IN TERMS OF ACCURACY? WELL, ACTUALLY, JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. AND IN THE BOOK, I GO INTO THIS MORE DETAIL. BUT IN AN HOUR LONG LECTURE, I'M JUST GOING TO HIT THE HIGH POINTS. SO LET'S LOOK QUICKLY AT THESE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF THE STANDARD STORY. THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT, IS THE IDEA THAT THE DECLARATION STATES ARE MODERN IDEAL OF EQUALITY. WHAT DOES ALL MEN ARE CREATED MEAN TO US TODAY? SOMETHING LIKE ALL PEOPLE DESERVE EQUAL TREATMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT. MAYBE OR AT LEAST THEY DESERVE EQUAL AND RESPECT. SO ALL PEOPLE ARE OF INHERENTLY EQUAL AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT MEANT IN 1776. TO THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE AND READ THE DECLARATION. THEN AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT DID MEAN IN A SECOND. BUT TO START I WANT TO EXPLAIN HOW WE CAN BE PRETTY CONFIDENT. IT DIDN'T MEAN ANYTHING LIKE MODERN IDEAL OF EQUALITY. SO FIRST, THIS IDEA OF UNIVERSAL UNDER LAW WOULD HAVE BEEN PRETTY STARTLING. IN 1776. AND THE STANDARD STORY SAYS THAT ITS INTERPRETATION. BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY A POINT AGAINST IT. SO NO GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD FOLLOWED THAT PRINCIPLE OR EVER HAD. SO IT WOULDN'T VERY PERSUASIVE TO PUT IT FORWARD AS A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH. AND IN FACT, JEFFERSON WAS NOT TO BE NOVEL. HE WAS TRYING TO SHOW THAT ACCORDING TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES, THE COLONISTS WERE JUSTIFIED IN DECLARING INDEPENDENCE. HIS GOAL, HE SAID, WAS NOT TO FIND NEW PRINCIPLES OR NEW ARGUMENTS. NEVER BEFORE THOUGHT OF, BUT TO PLACE BEFORE MANKIND. THE COMMON SENSE OF THE SUBJECT. AND CONTEMPORARIES DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NOVEL EITHER. PEOPLE JUST DIDN'T PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO THE PREAMBLE. IN 1776. AND THEN SECOND, GOING BACK TO POINT ABOUT NO GOVERNMENT FOLLOWING IT, THE COLONISTS WERE NOT TREATING EVERYONE EQUALLY. THEY WERE DENYING EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW IN A PRETTY STRIKING WAY. THEY WERE ENSLAVING PEOPLE AND THE MODERN READING OF THE DECLARATION, OF COURSE, IS INCONSISTENT WITH SLAVERY. SO ON OUR MODERN READING IT STARTS OUT WITH THE COLONISTS BRANDING THEMSELVES AS ILLEGITIMATE OPPRESSORS. THAT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. IT WOULD BE VERY STRANGE TO START THE DECLARATION WITH A PRINCIPLE THAT CONDEMNS SOMETHING COLONISTS THEMSELVES ARE DOING. AND WE CAN SEE THIS EVEN MORE CLEARLY IF WE LOOK, AT THE PROCESS OF WRITING THE DECLARATION. BECAUSE JEFFERSON'S FIRST DRAFT INCLUDED, A COMPLAINT AGAINST KING GEORGE THAT SOUNDS LIKE A CRITICISM OF SLAVERY. IT CONDEMNED HIM FOR ENGAGING IN THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE AND INTRODUCED SLAVERY TO AMERICA. NOW THIS ISN'T QUITE THE SAME THING AS A CRITICISM. MAINTAINING SLAVERY IN AMERICA. YOU COULD BE AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND STILL THINK AMERICAN SLAVERY SHOULDN'T BE ABOLISHED. BUT EVEN THIS INDIRECT CRITICISM WAS TOO MUCH FOR THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, AND THEY TOOK IT OUT. SO SO THERE'S REALLY NO WAY THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT IN AS THE FIRST SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH, A PRINCIPLE THAT CONDEMNED SLAVERY IN AMERICA. SO WHAT DID ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, MEAN IN 1776? IF NOT THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD TREAT ALL PEOPLE EQUALLY, IT MEANT SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT AND MUCH MORE LIMITED. IT MEANT THAT IN A WORLD WITHOUT GOVERNMENT OR LAWS, THE HYPOTHETICAL WORLD THAT PHILOSOPHERS CALLED THE STATE OF NATURE NO ONE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO OBEY ANYONE ELSE. IF PEOPLE JUST POPPED INTO EXISTENCE AND WORLD. IF THEY WERE CREATED AS, THE DECLARATION SAYS NO ONE WOULD HAVE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY OVER ANYONE ELSE AND ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL IS THE STARTING POINT FOR A THEORY WHERE LEGITIMATE POLITICAL AUTHORITY COMES FROM. WHAT IT'S DOING BASICALLY IS DENYING THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS. IT'S SAYING SOME PEOPLE NOT CHOSEN BY GOD TO RULE LEGITIMATELY OVER OTHERS. AND JEFFERSON ACTUALLY CONFIRMED THIS IN HIS LATER WRITINGS. HE RESTATES THE PRINCIPLE. HE SAYS THE MASS MANKIND HAS NOT BEEN BORN WITH SADDLES ON THEIR BACKS, NOR A FAVORED FEW BOOTED AND SPURRED READY TO RIDE THEM BY THE GRACE OF GOD. SO IF IT DOESN'T COME FROM, GOD, WHERE DOES LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY COME FROM? THE DECLARATION GIVES AN ANSWER, WHICH IS BASICALLY A VERY STANDARD FORM OF ENLIGHTENMENT SOCIAL CONTRACT, WHICH WAS THE DOMINANT POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE. 18TH CENTURY. IN HYPOTHETICAL STATE OF NATURE, PEOPLE FREE AND EQUAL, BUT THEY'RE NOT SAFE. THEY HAVE NATURAL RIGHTS TO LIFE AND LIBERTY. BUT OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT VIOLATE THOSE RIGHTS. SO PEOPLE COME TOGETHER, FORM GOVERNMENTS TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS THROUGH COLLECTIVE ACTION. SOCIETY IS BASICALLY A MUTUAL SELF-DEFENSE PACT. GOVERNMENTS ARE FORMED TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO FORM THEM AND CONSENT TO SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO THE GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY. SO THAT'S WHAT MAKES A GOVERNMENT LEGITIMATE, ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION, IT'S FORMED BY CONSENT AND IT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS, THE PEOPLE WHO FORM IT. AND IF THE GOVERNMENT FAILS IN ITS PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THEIR RIGHTS, PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALTER, ABOLISH IT, AND MAKE A NEW ONE. THAT'S POLITICAL THEORY OF THE DECLARATION. THAT'S THE PREAMBLE SETS OUT. IT'S VERY CONVENTIONAL. IN 1776, WHICH IS WHY PEOPLE DIDN'T PAY MUCH ATTENTION IT AND THEN THE REST OF THE DECLARATION GOES ON TO ARGUE THAT BRITISH GOVERNMENT IS NOT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE COLONISTS. IN FACT, IT'S OPPRESSING SO THEY CAN REJECT ITS AUTHORITY AND MAKE NEW GOVERNMENTS. NOW, WHAT DOES THIS THEORY MEAN FOR SLAVERY? WELL, LESS THAN YOU MIGHT THINK. IT MEANS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T ENSLAVE ITS OWN CITIZENS. THE INSIDERS, THE PEOPLE WHO FORM THE GOVERNMENT. BUT IT MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T ENSLAVE OUTSIDERS. PEOPLE WHO AREN'T PART OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY AND THE INSIDER OUTSIDER DISTINCTION EXPLAINS THE COLONISTS COULD COMPLAIN THAT KING GEORGE WAS FIGURATIVELY TRYING TO MAKE THEM INTO SLAVES WHILE THEY LITERALLY ENSLAVING OTHER PEOPLE ENSLAVING YOUR OWN CITIZENS DELEGITIMIZES THE GOVERNMENT. ENSLAVING OUTSIDERS. NOW THEORY OF THE DECLARATION DOES MEAN SLAVERY IS NOT THE EXERCISE OF LEGITIMATE POLITICAL AUTHORITY. BUT NO ONE THOUGHT IT WAS NO. ONE DEFENDED IT ON THAT BASIS. EVERYONE. SLAVERY DEPRIVED PEOPLE OF A NATURAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY. AND THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THAT DEPRIVATION WAS JUSTIFIED. BUT OF COURSE, NOW WE EASILY SEE THAT IT'S NOT. BUT THIS CONTESTED AT THE TIME. PEOPLE ARGUED ABOUT IT. DEFENDERS OF WOULD SAY THINGS ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF CHRISTIANITY OR CIVILIZATION. OR THEY TALK ABOUT INHERENT RACIAL DIFFERENCES, AS JEFFERSON DID. AND THESE ARE TERRIBLE JUSTIFICATIONS, OF COURSE. BUT THE POINT IS, THEY'RE PART OF AN ARGUMENT THAT THE DECLARATION JUST DOESN'T ENGAGE. THE DECLARATION IS ALL ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF INSIDERS. IT MENTIONS OUTSIDERS THREE TIMES. BUT NOT TO CONSIDER THEIR RIGHTS. IT BRINGS UP THREE GROUPS OF OUTSIDERS. ALL THEM ARE PRESENTED AS THREATS. AS PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO KILL THE COLONISTS. IN FACT, SO THESE OUTSIDERS OR, THE HESSIAN MERCENARIES THAT GEORGE IS BRINGING ACROSS THE SEA TO COMPLETE WORKS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION. THE NATIVE AMERICANS. HE IS ENCOURAGING ATTACK THE COLONISTS AND THE DECLARATION CALLS THEM MERCILESS SAVAGES. AND THE ENSLAVED PEOPLE THAT HE'S ENCOURAGING TO REBEL. THAT'S THE LAST. THE GREATEST AGAINST KING GEORGE. HE'S ENCOURAGING DOMESTIC INSURRECTIONS. SO THE BASIC POINT THERE IS THE IS NOT AN ANTI SLAVERY DOCUMENT IN 1776. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN MODERN IDEA OF EQUALITY UNDER LAW. AND ANOTHER POINT WHICH WILL BE IMPORTANT LATER, IT'S PRO-DEMOCRACY EITHER WE TEND TO THINK OF IT AS PROTO OCRACY, BUT THAT'S REALLY MINDLESS. BECAUSE THERE ISN'T EVEN A PHRASE TO TO IN SUPPORT OF THAT IDEA. WHAT MAKES A GOVERNMENT LEGITIMATE, ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION, IS FORMED BY CONSENT AND IT PROTECTS NATURAL RIGHTS OF THE INSIDERS THE PEOPLE WHO FORM IT. THAT'S A MONARCHY. EVEN A HEREDITARY MONARCHY CAN DO THAT. AND THAT'S THE COLONISTS COULDN'T JUST SAY THAT GEORGE WAS ILLEGITIMATE BECAUSE HE WAS A KING. THEY HAD TO SHOW THAT HE WAS A TYRANT. SO OUR MISUNDERSTOOD ENDING OF THE DECLARATION IS THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE STANDARD STORY. BECAUSE THE STORY TAKES THE DECLARATION AS THE FOUNDATION FOR BASICALLY EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT I'LL SAY A LITTLE BIT THE OTHER ELEMENTS TOO, BECAUSE THEY REVEAL OTHER PROBLEMS, WAS THE REVOLUTION A WAR FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY? WAS IT AN INSPIRING STRUGGLE FOR THE LIBERTY OF ALL? NOT REALLY. DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAD DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGY, AND SOME PEOPLE DID THINK ABOUT IT TERMS OF UNIVERSAL RIGHTS. BUT THE PICTURE IS MIXED. AND IT DOESN'T FAVOR THE COLONISTS. THE BEST WAY TO SEE THIS IS PROBABLY TO CONSIDER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REVOLUTION AND SLAVERY. SLAVERY IS THE MOST EXTREME DENIAL, LIBERTY AND EQUALITY THAT YOU CAN IMAGINE. SO HOW PEOPLE ACTED WITH RESPECT TO IT TELLS YOU SOMETHING ABOUT COMMITMENT TO THOSE VALUES. SO WHAT HAPPENED? ENSLAVED PEOPLE DURING THE REVOLUTION? WELL, SOME ENSLAVED PEOPLE FOUGHT FOR THE PATRIOTS AND SOME THEM WERE REWARDED WITH FREEDOM. BUT SOME OF THE ENSLAVED PEOPLE WERE THERE, WASHINGTON'S ARMY, BECAUSE THE COLONISTS WERE ALLOWED TO AVOID MILITARY SERVICE, PROVIDING SUBSTITUTES. AND SOME THEM SUBSTITUTED THE PEOPLE THEY ENSLAVED IN SOUTH CAROLINA. THE COLONIAL GOVERNMENT TRIED TO WHITE MEN TO JOIN THE FIGHT FOR LIBERTY BY PROMISING TO GIVE THEM IF THEY SIGNED UP. FAR MORE OF THE PEOPLE ENSLAVED BY THE AMERICANS JOINED THE BRITISH FORCES. LORD DUNMORE FORMED WHAT HE CALLED AN ETHIOPIAN REGIMENT WHOSE UNIFORMS INCLUDED SASHES THAT SAID LIBERTY TO SLAVES. THE BRITISH ENGAGED IN MASS EMANCIPATION, WHICH THE AMERICANS WAS APPALLING AND COMPLAINED ABOUT IN THE DECLARATION AND ELSEWHERE. AND AFTER THE WAR, THE TREATY OF PARIS CONTAINED, THE DEMAND THAT THE BRITISH WITHDRAW FROM THE COLONIES WITHOUT CARRYING AWAY WHAT THE TREATY CALLED ANY OR OTHER PROPERTY. NOW, BRITISH DEFIED THAT. THEY DIDN'T RETURN. THE PEOPLE THAT THEY HAD PROMISED FREEDOM AND UNITED STATES DIPLOMATS TRIED FOR DECADES TO MAKE THEM PAY. SO THE REVOLUTION IS NOT THAT INSPIRING AS A WAR? THE ARE FOCUSED ON THEIR RIGHTS AND THEIR SENSE OF BEING OPPRESSED AND THEY'RE PRETTY BLIND TO WAYS THAT THEY'RE REPRESSING OTHER PEOPLE. WHAT ABOUT THE THIRD PART OF THE STORY, THE 1787 CONSTITUTION? WELL, STANDARD STORY TELLS US THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS A WAY OF ACHIEVING THE IDEALS OF THE DECLARATION, THE PROMOTION OF EQUALITY OR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. BUT THIS IS ALSO FAR OFF. IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE 1787 CONSTITUTE IS NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. IT'S ACTUALLY NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUALS AT ALL. IT'S BASICALLY DESIGNED TO CREATE A GOVERNMENT THAT CAN MAKE THE STATES COOPERATE WHEN NECESSARY, AND IT CAN HANDLE ISSUES THAT CAN'T BE LEFT TO THE STATES. THAT'S NOT AT ALL THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT THAT THE DECLARATION DESCRIBES THE GOVERNMENTS IN THE DECLARATION ARE PROTECTING THE NATURAL OF INDIVIDUALS FROM OTHER. AND THE 1787 CONSTITUTION DOESN'T DO THIS AT. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PROVISION IN THE 1787 CONSTITUTION THAT PUTS LIMITS ON WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN DO. AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE 1787 CONSTITUTION CREATES ISN'T IN THE BUSINESS OF PROTECTING NATURAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS EITHER. CONGRESS CAN'T MAKE IT CRIME FOR ONE AMERICAN TO KILL ANOTHER. IT CAN'T ENGAGE IN THE MOST PROTECTION OF, NATURAL RIGHTS. IN FACT, THERE'S ONLY CONTEXT WHERE THE 1787 CONSTITUTION PAYS ATTENTION TO INDIVIDUALS, DEPRIVING OTHER INDIVIDUALS OF NATURAL RIGHTS. IT RECOGNIZES THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE TAKING AWAY. OTHER PEOPLE'S LIBERTY, THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE ENSLAVING OTHER PEOPLE AND IT PAYS SPECIAL ATTENTION TO SLAVERY. BUT NOT BECAUSE IT'S TRYING TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. IT PAYS ATTENTION TO SLAVERY BECAUSE SLAVERY IS A SOURCE OF INTERSTATE CONFLICT. SO THE CONSTITUTION TRIES TO MANAGE THAT CONFLICT AND IT MANAGES THE CONFLICT BY PROTECTING SLAVERY. IT PROTECTS THE INTERNATIONAL SLAVE TRADE FROM CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE UNTIL. 1808. IT STRIPS STATES OF THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE LEGAL OF PEOPLE WITHIN THEIR BORDERS BY PROVIDING THAT ENSLAVED PEOPLE WHO ESCAPED TO FREE STATES CANNOT FREE AND MUST BE RETURNED. AND IT REWARDS SLAVE STATES WITH EXTRA POWER IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BASED ON THEIR FREE POPULATION. PLUS 3/5 OF THEIR ENSLAVED POPULATION. AND BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES IS USED TO CALCULATE NUMBER OF ELECTORS. THIS SPILLS THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT NOMINATES JUDGES. IT SPILLS INTO THE JUDICIARY, TOO SO EVERY BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A PRO-SLAVERY TILT. SO FOUNDING AMERICA. THE AMERICA OF 1776 AND 1787, REALLY A GREAT PLACE TO LOOK IF YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND OUR COMMITMENT TO AND UNIVERSAL LIBERTY, THE IDEOLOGY OF FOUNDING AMERICA IS WHAT I CALL EXCLUSIVE INDIVIDUALISM. EXCLUSIVE BECAUSE THERE'S A STRONG DISTINCTION BETWEEN INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS THAT IS CRUCIAL TO THE THEORY OF THE DECLARATION. THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF INSIDERS AND THE OUTSIDERS IN THE DECLARATION. ALL THREATS TO THE LIVES OF THE COLONISTS. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION IS EXCLUSIVE TO. IT HAS A RULE THAT BLACK CAN NEVER BECOME CITIZENS OF THE UNITED. SURELY SOME OF YOU HAVE THE REACTION. WAIT THAT'S NOT THE 1787 CONSTITUTION. THAT'S THE SUPREME OPINION. AND DRED SCOTT AND EVERYONE. DRED SCOTT WAS WRONG. WELL, I'M NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT. DRED SCOTT IS AN EVIL DECISION. YEAH, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S WRONG. IT MIGHT BE A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF AN EVIL DOCUMENT. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION. CLEARLY DOES HAVE SOME EVIL, PRO-SLAVERY PROVISIONS IN IT. AND MAYBE SCOTT WAS RIGHT. BUT THERE'S A MORE IMPORTANT POINT. DRED SCOTT WAS A SEVEN TO DECISION. MAYBE THOSE SEVEN JUSTICES WERE BIASED JUSTICES. LET'S GRANT THAT. BUT NOW YOU NEED TO ASK, HOW DID WE END UP WITH BIASED, PRO-SLAVERY JUSTICES ON THE SUPREME COURT? THE ANSWER IS, THEY WERE APPOINTED BY PRO-SLAVERY PRESIDENTS WHO WERE ELECTED IN PART BECAUSE OF THE 3/5 CLAUSE. SO SCOTT IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF RACIST INDIVIDUALS. DRED SCOTT IS THE PRODUCT OF SYSTEMIC RACISM AND THE SYSTEM IS. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION. SO EXCLUSIVE INDIVIDUALISM MEANS A STRONG AND A RACIALIZED INSIDER OUTSIDER LINE. THAT'S THE EXCLUSIVE PART. THE INDIVIDUALISM MEANS THAT THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL INSIDERS. AND BASICALLY WHAT THAT AMOUNTS TO IS ANTI REDISTRIBUTION. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT TAKE FROM ONE INSIDER IN ORDER TO GIVE TO ANOTHER PERSON. NOW, AS I DESCRIBE IT, THAT MIGHT NOT SOUND SO BAD. IT MEANS BASICALLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T FAVORITES AMONG THE INSIDERS. IT HAS TO TREAT THEM EQUALLY, YOU MIGHT THINK. BUT THAT'S NOT QUITE IT. ANTI REDISTRIBUTION MEANS THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO TREAT INSIDERS NEUTRALLY AND NEUTRALITY IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM EQUALITY. IF YOU START FROM EQUALITY NEUTRALITY MIGHT MAINTAIN IT IT WILL PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM PRODUCING INEQUALITY ANYWAY. BUT IF YOU START FROM OR IF INEQUALITY DEVELOPS OVER TIME AND IT ALWAYS DOES, THEN NEUTRALITY LOCKS THAT INEQUALITY. NEUTRALITY STOPS THE GOVERNMENT FROM ADDRESSING IT. IT STOPS THE GOVERNMENT FROM PROMOTING EQUALITY AND. THAT IS THE THEORY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT NATURAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO FORMED. IT CAN'T INFRINGE ON RIGHTS TO BENEFIT OUTSIDERS, AND IT CAN'T INFRINGE ON THEIR RIGHTS BENEFIT OTHER INSIDERS. IF ALL IT'S DOING IS TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE EQUAL. NOW THE DECLARATION, OF COURSE, ISN'T LAW, BUT THIS THEORY HAS COMMANDED A MAJORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT TWICE WHEN THE JUSTICES SAID THE CONSTITU LUTION EMBODIES IT. FIRST EXAMPLE IS LOCHNER AGAINST NEW YORK, WHICH IS A FAMOUS CASE IN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY, BUT NOT AS WELL KNOWN OUTSIDE IT. IN THAT CASE, THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN A NEW YORK MAXIMUM POWER LAW FOR BAKESHOP EMPLOYEES BECAUSE IT WAS BENEFITING EMPLOYEES AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR EMPLOYERS. THERE IS BENEFIT IN SOME INSIDERS AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS AND IT WAS TRYING TO PROMOTE EQUALITY WHICH THE COURT SAID IS NOT A LEGITIMATE GOAL OF GOVERNMENT. INTERESTINGLY, THE LEGAL COMMUNITY SAID, BUT MAYBE NOT THAT WELL KNOWN OUTSIDE. BUT THE OTHER DECISION WHERE THIS WON IS A DECISION THAT EVERYONE KNOWS. IT'S THE ONE I JUST TALKED ABOUT. IT'S DRED SCOTT FREEING ENSLAVED PEOPLE IS BENEFITING OUTSIDERS AT THE EXPENSE OF INSIDERS. AND ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE NO LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT WOULD SUCH A THING. SO THE THEORY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, IF YOU TAKE IT THE WAY THE SUPREME COURT HAS TAKEN IT, IF YOU TAKE IT THE WAY IT WAS, UNDERSTOOD 1776, IT SAYS THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT TRY TO PROMOTE EQUALITY AND IT SAYS THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT ABOLISH SLAVERY. THOSE ARE JUST FACTS ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. THAT IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IN CASES WHERE THE DECLARATION HAS GUIDED THE OUTCOME. BUT OF COURSE, THAT'S NOT HOW WE UNDERSTAND IT NOW. WE UNDERSTAND THE TO BE ANTI SLAVERY AND PRO EQUALITY. SO WHERE DID UNDERSTANDING COME FROM? THE ANSWER IS PRETTY SIMPLE. IT'S ABOLITIONISTS IN THE 1820S AS ABOLITIONISM IS GAINING STEAM. PEOPLE ARE LOOKING A FEDERAL DOCUMENT TO ENLIST IN THEIR CAUSE. 1787 CONSTITUTION IS NOT A VERY GOOD CANDIDATE. IT'S ACTUALLY PRO SLAVERY. AS I SAID, IT'S PRO-SLAVERY. THAT ABOLITIONIST WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON PUBLICLY BURNS A COPY, CALLING IT A COVENANT WITH AND AN AGREEMENT WITH HELL. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DOES AT LEAST TALK ABOUT PEOPLE BEING CREATED. SO THE OPPONENTS OF SLAVERY TO IT AND EVENTUALLY THE EFFORTS OF ABOLITIONISTS, BOTH AND WHITE AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, A DIFFERENT IDEOLOGY EMERGES. THIS IS WHAT I CALL INCLUSIVE EQUALITY AND. IT'S BASICALLY THE OPPOSITE OF EXCLUSIVE. INDIVIDUALISM. THE INCLUSIVE PART MEANS OUTSIDERS CAN INSIDERS MAYBE STATES CAN'T KEEP PEOPLE OUT THEIR POLITICAL COMMUNITIES. MAYBE ANYONE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A CITIZEN. AND THE EQUALITY PART MEANS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TREAT PEOPLE. AND THAT REDISTRIBUTION. OKAY, THE GOVERNMENT CAN ACT TO PROMOTE EQUALITY. IT CAN TAKE FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE MUCH. AND GIVE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE LITTLE. AND IF I ASK YOU NOW WHICH OF THESE VISIONS IS OUR AMERICA EXCLUSIVE INDIVIDUALISM OR INCLUSIVE EQUALITY, YOU'LL PROBABLY SAY INCLUSIVE EQUALITY. AND THE ANSWER IS MAYBE IT WAS ONCE. IT COULD BE IF WE MAKE IT SO. BUT RIGHT NOW, AMERICA IS LOCKED. A STRUGGLE BETWEEN THESE VISIONS, AS IT HAS BEEN FOR ABOUT 200 YEARS. AND PART OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO GIVE YOU A CLEARER PICTURE OF THAT STRUGGLE. AND IF WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IF WE WANT EQUALITY TO PREVAIL. SO NOW I SHIFT BASICALLY INTO THE SECOND HALF OF THE LECTURE. FIRST HALF IS TELLING YOU WHY THE STANDARD STORY ISN'T ACCURATE AND ANSWER IS IT MISREPRESENTS FOUNDING. IT TRIES TO TELL YOU THAT A SOCIETY THAT WAS BUILT ON EXCLUSIVE INDIVIDUALISM WAS ACTUALLY DEVOTED TO INCLUSIVE EQUALITY. THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE. THE SECOND HALF IS ABOUT HOW EQUALITY EMERGED AND FOUGHT AND WON FOR A LITTLE WHILE. AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR WHO WE ARE AND WHAT OUR STORY IS. SO THE INCLUSIVE READING OF THE DECLARATION EMERGES, I SAID WITH ABOLITIONISTS AND IT'S EMBRACED BY THE REPUBLICAN AND EVENTUALLY IT WINS. IT WINS IN THE CIVIL WAR. AND NOW WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT HOW IT WINS AND WHO IT AND WHAT THAT MEANS. SO WHAT WAS THE CIVIL WAR ABOUT WHAT WERE THE TWO SIDES FIGHTING FOR? TO FIGURE THIS OUT, IT HELPS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF REVOLUTIONS. ONE IS WHAT I CALL A REGIME REVOLUTION. THIS IS TYPICALLY AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE OVER ENTIRE COUNTRY. AND IT'S BASIC IS THE EXISTING REGIME IS UNJUST AND IT MUST BE OVERTHROWN. SO YOU COULD THINK ABOUT RUSSIAN REVOLUTION OVERTHROWING THE CZAR OR THE FRENCH REVOLUTION OVERTHROWING, THE MONARCHY. THE OTHER IS A STATUS QUO REVOLUTION, WHICH IS MORE OFTEN A SECESSION MOVEMENT. IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO SEPARATE. AND THE BASIC ARGUMENT HERE IS THE EXISTING REGIME IS BUT PEOPLE ARE BEING DENIED WHAT THEY'RE DO UNDER IT. NOW, HOW DO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONS INTO THIS FRAMEWORK? THE FIRST AMERICAN REVOLUTION IN 1776 IS A STATUS QUO REVOLUTION. THE COLONISTS BASICALLY COMPLAINING THEY'VE BEEN DENIED THEIR RIGHTS AS ENGLISHMEN AND THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO DESTROY THE LEGAL ORDER JUST TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM IT. THE CIVIL OR THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION IN 1861 LOOKS VERY MUCH THE SAME FROM THE CONFEDERATE PERSPECTIVE. THEY DON'T SAY THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE CONSTITUTION AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT. THEY THAT FREE STATES AND, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE TWISTING THE CONSTITUTION AND DENYING THE SLAVE STATES, THE RIGHTS THEY WERE GUARANTEED WHEN THEY JOINED THE UNION. THE SECESSION ACTS OF SEVERAL STATES OFFER TO FORM A UNION. OTHER SECEDING STATES ON. THE BASIS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE US. AND WHEN CONFEDERATES WRITE THEIR NEW CONSTITUTION, IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME AS THE 1787 CONSTITUTION. REALLY WHAT THEY DO IS THEY MAKE THEIR OF THE 1787 CONSTITUTION EXPLICIT. SO IT STARTS OUT WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES AND IT SPECIFIES THE CONSTITUTION IS, THE ACT OF THE STATES IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITIES, NOT OF A SINGLE PEOPLE. THEY REMOVE GENERAL WELFARE AS A GOAL. AND THE PREAMBLE THE US CONSTITUTION HAS. THEY THAT TO PREVENT REDISTRIBUTION LIKE DISASTER RELIEF. THEY PUT IN EXPLICIT PROTECTIONS FOR SLAVERY. THEIR MUST RECOGNIZE SLAVERY AND CONFEDERATE TERRITORIES AND CITIZENS CAN TAKE PEOPLE TO ANY STATE WITHOUT THEM BECOMING FREE. BUT IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO THE 1787 CONSTITUTION. IT'S THEIR VERSION, THE STATUS QUO. WHAT THEY THINK THEY'RE ENTITLED TO. AND FROM LINCOLN'S PERSPECTIVE, THE WAR IS ALSO A WAR. THE STATUS QUO. AT LEAST AT THE BEGINNING. LINCOLN'S FIRST INAUGURAL SAYS. HE HAS NEITHER THE RIGHT NOR THE INCLINATION TO INTERFERE WITH SLAVERY WHERE IT EXISTS. HE ACCEPTS THE IDEA AN AMENDMENT ENTRENCHING SLAVERY EVEN AFTER SECESSION. HE SAYS RESTORATION OF THE UNION IS THE GOAL. IF YOU COULD SAVE THE UNION WITHOUT FREEING ANY SLAVES, HE DO IT. THE PRELIMINARY EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION ISSUED, SEPTEMBER 22ND, 1862, SAYS HEREAFTER AS BEFORE THE WAR WILL BE PROSECUTED TO RESTORE THE UNION. IT'S A THREAT TO THE REBELS IF THEY DO NOT END THE REBELLION, THE PEOPLE THEY WILL BE FREED. BUT IT'S ALSO OFFER, IF THEY LAY THEIR ARMS, THEY CAN KEEP SLAVERY. SO AT THE BEGINNING, BOTH SIDES ARE FIGHTING FOR THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUS QUO. AT SOME POINT, THE AND PROBABLY THE BEST POINT IS SOME TIME BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1862 AND JANUARY FIRST, 1863, BETWEEN THE PRELIMINARY THE FINAL EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. ONE SIDE CHANGES ITS MIND. THE STATUS QUO REVOLUTION TURNS INTO SOMETHING ELSE. IT TURNS INTO A REGIME CHANGE REVOLUTION. BUT NOT ON THE CONFEDERATE. ON THE SIDE OF THE UNITED STATES. THE CONFEDERATES ARE STILL FIGHTING THEIR STATUS QUO REVOLUTION. THEY'RE TRYING TO SEPARATE AND ENJOY THE RIGHTS THAT THEY BARGAINED FOR WHEN THEY SIGNED UP. BUT IS LEADING A REGIME CHANGE. THE EXISTING REGIME MUST BE OVERTHROWN BECAUSE IT IS UNJUST AND THE EXISTING REGIME HERE ISN'T THE CONFEDERACY. IT'S FOUNDING. AMERICA. ONE WAY TO SEE THIS IS TO ASK IN THE CIVIL WAR, WHOSE SIDE ARE THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS? WHOSE SIDE IS THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ON? LINCOLN SAYS IT'S ON HIS SIDE, OF COURSE, IN THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS. HE SAYS HE'S FIGHTING FOR ITS CENTRAL VALUE OF EQUALITY. BUT WE'VE SEEN THAT'S NOT ITS CENTRAL VALUE. NOT IN 1776. ITS CENTRAL THEN IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING MORE LIKE NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION. PEOPLE CAN DECIDE THEIR GOVERNMENT ISN'T DOING WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO AND THEY CAN CHANGE IT. THAT'S WHAT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES DID. THAT'S WHAT THE SECESSIONISTS, TOO. AND THEY SAID THIS. THEY PUBLISHED OF CAUSES EXPLAINING WHY SECESSION WAS JUSTIFIED. AND THEY OFTEN INVOKED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN THE NAME THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. THEY SAID, WE DECLARE OUR INDEPENDENCE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. LINCOLN, BY CONTRAST, WAS SAYING MORE LIKE IN THE NAME OF THE DECLARATION INDEPENDENCE, WHICH SAYS THAT JUST COMES FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, THAT PEOPLE CAN CHANGE THEIR GOVERNMENT. I NOT LET YOU CHANGE YOUR GOVERNMENT. I WILL USE MILITARY FORCE TO COMPEL YOU TO STAY THE UNION. AND THEN I WILL REMAKE YOUR SOCIETY AGAINST YOUR WILL WITHOUT, YOUR CONSENT. SO WHO A BETTER CLAIM TO THE DECLARATION? THAT'S NOT REALLY CLOSE. AND I ALSO THINK IT'S CLOSER. IT'S LESS CLEAR. BUT I ALSO THINK THE 1787 CONSTITUTION IS ON THE SIDE. THE SECESSIONISTS. THE FOR THAT IS THE 1787 CONSTITUTION THINKS OF THE GOVERNMENT AS A THREAT TO, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, AND IT THINKS THE STATES, AS THEIR PROTECTORS. SO IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STARTS TO BEHAVE TYRANNICAL, THE STATES FIGHT AGAINST IT AND FEDERALIST 46, WRITTEN VIRGINIA SLAVE OWNER JAMES MADISON EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY WILL WIN JUST LIKE THEY DID IN THE REVOLUTION. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, HE ASKS, IF IT CAME TO FORCE 13 STATES AGAINST THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. THE STATES WOULD WIN. NOW, AMAZINGLY THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. IF YOU ACCEPT THE CONFEDERATE TO KENTUCKY AND MISSOURI, 13 STATES FOUGHT THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. THE FIRST FLAG OF THE CONFEDERACY BY WAY, IS 13 STARS IN A CIRCLE WITH, RED AND WHITE STRIPES IN THE BACKGROUND. JUST LIKE THE BETSY ROSS FLAG OF 1776. NOW, OF COURSE, FOR THE CONFEDERACY, EACH STAR REPRESENTS A SLAVE STATE, WHEREAS WITH THE BETSY ROSS FLAG. OH, WAIT, THAT'S ALSO, 13 STATES THAT RECOGNIZE SLAVERY. SO THE CIVIL WAR IS KIND OF A REPLAY OF THE REVOLUTION. IT'S WHAT MADISON PREDICTED. EXCEPT HE WAS WRONG ABOUT THE OUTCOME AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WON. AND WHAT THAT SHOULD YOU? IS THAT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF FOUNDING AMERICA THREE OF WHOSE FIRST FOUR PRESIDENTS WERE SLAVE OWNERS FROM VIRGINIA, INCLUDING JAMES MADISON, LINCOLN'S SIDE IN THE CIVIL WAR IS THE BAD GUYS. AND THAT'S CLEARER, I THINK DURING RECONSTRUCTION. SO HERE'S SOME THAT MAYBE YOU WEREN'T TAUGHT HOW ARE THE RECONSTRUCTION? THE 13TH, 14TH AND 15TH RATIFIED. WELL THE 13TH AMENDMENT, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW THAT BANNED SLAVERY. CONGRESS, IT IT GOES OUT TO THE STATES AND IT'S RATIFIED BY THREE QUARTERS OF THEM. THE DEFEATED CONFEDERATES ACCEPT THAT SLAVERY IS OVER, AT LEAST IN NAME. BUT THEY TRY TO RESTORE IT IN PRACTICE WITH OVERTLY LAWS THAT TIE THE FORMERLY ENSLAVED INTO SERVICE CONTRACTS, LOW WAGES AND DENY THEM ANY RIGHTS. CONGRESS PASSES CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS TO, WIPE OUT THAT DISCRIMINATION. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THOSE ACTS SAY IS THAT ANYONE BORN IN THE US IS A CITIZEN. BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT CONGRESS CAN ACTUALLY DO THAT. IT GOES AGAINST THE DRED DECISION. SO THE SUPREME COURT MIGHT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND ALSO, IF THE FORMER CONFEDERATE STATES SEND THEIR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES BACK TO CONGRESS, THEY MIGHT TAKE CONTROL AND REPEAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IN A SORT IRONIC TWIST. THE FACT THAT HAS BEEN ABOLISHED GIVES THE SOUTH MORE POWER IN CONGRESS BECAUSE NOW THE 3/5 COMPROMISE HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED AND THE FORMERLY ENSLAVED ARE COUNTED AS FULL PERSONS. SO CONGRESS DECIDES THESE ACTS NEED TO BE MADE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. THAT'S WHAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT DOES, AT LEAST IN PART. IT GRANTS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. AND THEN IT SAYS THAT WITH CITIZENSHIP COME RIGHTS TO LIBERTY AND EQUALITY, THAT THE HAVE TO RESPECT. THIS IS A MASSIVE ON STATE AUTHORITY. STATES CAN'T DECIDE ANYMORE WHO IS PART OF THEIR POLITICAL COMMUNITY. WHO GETS TO BE A CITIZEN. THEY CAN'T DRAW THE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OUR LINE. AND THEY HAVE TO TREAT PEOPLE EQUALLY. THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS GOING TO TAKE REGIME OF EXCLUSIVE INDIVIDUALISM AND TURN IT INTO ONE OF INCLUSIVE EQUALITY. THE FORMER CONFEDERATE STATES DON'T THAT AND THEY SAY NO. SO THIS IS THE PART OF THE HISTORY THAT I EXPECT YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T LEARN IN GREAT DETAIL. I DON'T THINK THAT WE TEACH IT THE WAY THAT WE SHOULD. THE FORMER CONFEDERATE STATES, THE STATES THAT SECEDED AND THEN RATIFIED THE 13TH AMENDMENT, THEY REJECT 14TH AMENDMENT. TEN STATE LEGISLATURE VOTE AGAINST IT BY 1867. IT IS CLEAR IT NOT GET THE REQUIRED THREE QUARTERS OF THE STATE'S VOTING IN FAVOR. AND THIS IS WHERE THINGS GET REALLY RADICAL BECAUSE CONGRESS IN RESPONSE SIMPLY THOSE STATES. IT DECLARES THAT NO EXIST. IT PUTS THEM UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE US ARMY. THERE ARE NO STATE GOVERNMENTS. THERE AREN'T EVEN STATES. THERE ARE FIVE MILITARY DISTRICTS IN, THE SOUTH AND THEN CONGRESS MAKES NEW STATES. IT ORDERS THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTH TO HOLD CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS AND WRITE NEW CONSTITUTIONS AND MAKE NEW LEGISLATURES. BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THAT ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. WHO MADE THE OLD STATES? THE FORMERLY GET TO VOTE FOR DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTIONS AND PARTICIPATE IN THEM? CONGRESS SAYS THE FORMER CONFEDERATES DO NOT. SO HAS NOT ONLY SAID WHO'S GOING TO BE A CITIZEN OF THESE STATES, IT SAID WHO GETS TO EXERCISE POLITICAL POWER. THESE ARE REALLY NEW STATES. THE NAME IS THE SAME. THE GEOGRAPHY IS THE SAME. BUT THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. IT'S A REVOLUTION FROM ABOVE AND IT'S A REGIME REVOLUTION. AND THESE NEW STATES ARE ONES THAT RATIFIED THE 14TH AMENDMENT. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATE LEGISLATURES, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THEY ARE DIFFERENT. THE LEGISLATURES THAT SECEDED IN 1861 ARE ALL WHITE AND ALL DEMOCRATS. THE LEGISLATURES THAT RATIFIED 13TH AMENDMENT ARE ALL WHITE. AND STILL ALMOST ALL DEMOCRATS. BUT THE LEGISLATURES THAT RATIFY 14TH AMENDMENT ARE RACIALLY INTEGRATED, AND THEY'RE ALL REPUBLICAN. THAT RATIFICATION, I SAY, IS WHAT MAKES OUR NEW RECONSTRUCTION AMERICA. SO I SAID THE CIVIL WAR MIGHT LOOK BAD FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF FOUNDING AMERICA, RIGHT? MAYBE THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS THE BAD GUYS. THE BAD GUYS WON. WELL, WHAT ABOUT THIS? WHAT? MADISON AND JEFFERSON AND THE REST THINK ABOUT CONGRESS ANNIHILATING STATES, DISSOLVING THEIR GOVERNMENTS, REPLACING THEM WITH DIFFERENT ONES. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THEY WOULD BEEN APPALLED. THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT USURPING STATE AUTHORITY IS THE FOUNDING FEAR. DISSOLVE HAVING LEGISLATURES IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS IN THE DECLARATION AGAINST KING GEORGE. AND EVEN WE'RE JUST CONCERNED ABOUT LEGALITY. IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION ACT, WHICH WIPE OUT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE A BASIS IN THE CONSTITUTION. IF THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT BAD. THIS IS DEFINITELY MADISON'S COME TRUE. SO OUR STANDARD STORY SAYS IN THE CIVIL WAR FOUNDING FIGHTS AGAINST THIS DEVIANT INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY THAT SOMEHOW POPPED UP. DESPITE ITS OBVIOUS, WITH AMERICA'S DEEPEST VALUES AND FOUNDING AMERICA WINS THE WAR. AND IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION WHO IS IT FIGHTING AGAINST? AND FOUNDING AMERICA IS REDEEMED. AND I AM SAYING NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENS. FOUNDING AMERICA AND IT IS DESTROYED BECAUSE FOUNDING AMERICA IS VERY. LIKE THE CONFEDERACY, NOT JUST BECAUSE EVERY STATE RECOGNIZES IN 1776, BUT IT SHARES THE IDEOLOGY OF THE EXCLUSIVE INDIVIDUALISM. LINCOLN'S REVOLUTION, WHICH ERADICATES SLAVERY AND REPLACES EXCLUSIVE INDIVIDUALISM THEM WITH INCLUSIVE EQUALITY, DIDN'T JUST DESTROY THE CONFEDERACY. IT DESTROYED FOUNDING, AND IT PUT RECONSTRUCTION IN AMERICA IN ITS PLACE AND RECONSTRUCTION. AMERICA IS OUR AMERICA. SO WE ARE NOT THE HEIRS OF THE FOUNDERS. WE ARE CONNECTED TO THEM. WE ARE THE HEIRS OF THE PEOPLE WHO DEFEATED AND THE. SO WHAT'S THE BIG TAKE AWAY FROM THE SECOND PART? WELL, THE STANDARD STORY HAD SOME NICE FEATURES, RIGHT? IT HAD A SHORT DOCUMENT THAT STATES OUR IDEALS. THAT'S THE DECLARATION. INDEPENDENCE. THAT'S HANDY, RIGHT YOU CAN MEMORIZE IT. AND IT HAD WAR THAT WAS FOUGHT FOR THOSE IDEALS. THE REVOLUTION THAT'S INSPIRING. YOU CAN SEE PEOPLE PUT THEIR LIVES THE LINE FOR THESE VALUES. AND IT HAD A LONGER DOCUMENT THAT GAVE THEM THE FORCE OF LAW. THAT'S THE 1787 CONSTITUTION. AND THAT SHOWS A REAL NATIONAL COMMITMENT. SO NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE. BUT WHAT I'VE JUST GIVEN YOU IS DIFFERENT STORY THAT HAS SAME IDEALS OF EQUALITY AND THE SAME FEATURES AND IS TRUE BECAUSE THE GETTYSBURG IS A SHORT STATEMENT OF. OUR VALUES YOU CAN MEMORIZE, PEOPLE DO MEMORIZE IT. THE CIVIL WAR IS, A WAR FOR THEM WHERE PEOPLE LAID DOWN THEIR LIVES FOR FREEDOM AND EQUALITY AND THE RECONSTRUCTION CONSTITUTION MAKES THEM LAW AND SHOWS OUR COMMITMENT TO THOSE VALUES. SO STORY IS BETTER BECAUSE MORE TRUE. BUT IT'S ALSO INSPIRING. THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS IS BETTER THAN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. IT'S PRO-DEMOCRACY GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE. LINCOLN IS BETTER THAN JEFFERSON. HE DIDN'T, FOR INSTANCE, ENSLAVE HIS CHILDREN. THE CIVIL WAR IS BETTER THAN THE REVOLUTION. IT'S REALLY WAR FOR LIBERTY. THE RECONSTRUCTION CONSTITUTION IS BETTER. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION. IT PAYS ATTENTION TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. AND WE AS A PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO SAY THAT OUR IDEALS CAME ENSLAVERS AND COEXISTED WITH SLAVERY. WE SAY THEY CAME FROM ABOLITIONISTS AND THEY WERE BORN IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST SLAVERY. THIS STORY IS ALSO, I THINK, MORE PRODUCTIVE. SO THE HEROES OF THE STANDARD STORY, THE PATRIOTS OF 1776 WHO FOCUSED RATHER OBSESSIVELY ON SUPPOSED INJUSTICES INFLICTED AGAINST THEM AND IGNORED THE INJUSTICES THEY INFLICTED ON OTHERS. THE HEROES OF MY BETTER STORY ARE PEOPLE WHO SAW INJUSTICE IN THE WORLD INJUSTICE THEY DIDN'T CREATE AND WORKED TO END IT EVEN AT GREAT COST TO THEMSELVES. AND THAT'S A BETTER LESSON IN TERMS OF WHAT WE SHOULD DO TO BE GOOD AMERICANS. RIGHT. DON'T OBSESS ABOUT YOUR OWN GRIEVANCES. TRY TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE MAKE FOR THE COMMON GOOD. THE BETTER, I THINK, INCLUDES AND EXCLUDES THE RIGHT PEOPLE. SO SOME PEOPLE HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING THEMSELVES IN RECONSTRUCTION. WELL, NO STORY IS PERFECTLY. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING THEMSELVES IN THE FOUND IT, TOO. NOW, THE WHO HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING THEMSELVES IN THE FOUNDING ARE PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT WRITING ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL DOESN'T MAKE UP FOR ENSLAVING YOUR CHILDREN. THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A HARD TIME THEMSELVES IN RECONSTRUCTION ARE THE PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFY WITH THE CONFEDERATE WHO FOUGHT A WAR TO PRESERVE A SOCIETY BUILT ON SLAVERY. AND IF THE QUESTION IS WHICH OF THOSE GROUPS, SHOULD WE MARGINALIZE WHICH WE MAKE UNCOMFORTABLE? WHICH GROUP SHOULD DOUBT WHETHER AMERICA REALLY SHARES THEIR VALUES? I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS PRETTY CLEAR CLEAR. AND TO FINISH, LET ME TRY TO CONNECT THIS STORY A LITTLE MORE EXPLICITLY TO THE PRESENT DAY. SO ONE THING I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO GIVE YOU A BETTER STORY. A STORY THAT SHOWS YOU IN AMERICA YOU CAN BELIEVE. BUT ANOTHER THING I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO PROMOTE INCLUSIVE IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST, EXCLUSIVE INDIVIDUALISM, BECAUSE THAT STRUGGLE IS STILL GOING ON. THE BETTER STORY I GAVE YOU SOUNDED HAPPY. MAYBE BUT IT DOESN'T END. IN 1868, RECONSTRUCTION. IT'S OVERTHROWN BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS DURING THE PERIOD THAT HISTORIANS CALL REDEMPTION. IT'S OVERTHROWN BY VIOLENCE BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STOPS THE INTEGRATED GOVERNMENTS IN THE SOUTH. WHITE AMERICANS CHOOSE UNITY. UNITY AMONG WHITES OVER JUSTICE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE COMMON THEME FOR MOST OF AMERICAN. IT'S UNITY, BUT IT'S BUILT ON OPPRESSION AND EXCLUSION. AND FOR ALMOST 100 YEARS, THE PROMISE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION AND AMENDMENTS IS DENIED UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY AND THE WARREN AND CONGRESS'S CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, AND MAYBE MOST IMPORTANT THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965. THIS WHAT HISTORIANS CALL THE SECOND RECONSTRUCTION. BUT JUST THE FIRST RECONSTRUCTION. THERE'S A BACKLASH. THERE'S WHAT I THE SECOND REDEMPTION. NOW THAT TERM IS LESS COMMON AMONG HISTORIANS, BUT I THINK IT'S CATCHING ON. AND I DATE IT BASICALLY TO 1980 WHEN REAGAN WINS 44 STATES. BUT ONLY 14% OF THE BLACK VOTE AND 49 STATES AND 9% OF THE BLACK VOTE IN 84. IT'S WHITE UNITY AT THE EXPENSE OF RACIAL EQUALITY. REAGAN PROMISES RETURN TO THE VALUES OF THE FOUNDING. THAT'S ORIGINALISM, WHICH WHAT REAGAN'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MAKES PROMINENT. THAT'S REALLY WHERE IT COMES FROM IN OUR MODERN HISTORY. BUT WHAT HE'S OFFERING IS EXCLUSIVE INDIVIDUALISM. AND THAT'S NOT JUST IDEOLOGY OF THE FOUNDING. IT'S THE IDEOLOGY OF THE CONFEDERACY. TWO OUTSIDERS ARE DANGEROUS. THEY'RE TAKING WHAT BELONGS TO THE REAL AMERICANS. THEY'RE A THREAT TO YOUR SAFETY. AND THERE'S A STRONG RACIAL ELEMENT TO THIS. THE SUBTEXT IS WE DON'T ACCEPT THAT ALL CITIZENS ARE EQUAL. WE DON'T ACCEPT THAT. JUST BEING BORN HERE MAKES YOU A FALLEN EQUAL MEMBER OF OUR POLITICAL COMMUNITY. WE DON'T ACCEPT THE 14TH AMENDMENT. WE DON'T ACCEPT RECONSTRUCTION. SO TAKE AWAY RECONSTRUCTION. AND YOU HAVE FOUNDING. AND REAGAN SAYS FIGHTING FOR THE VALUES OF THE FOUNDING IN A NATION THAT HAS TURNED FROM THEM. AND THAT'S TRUE. BUT WE'VE SEEN THAT FIGHT BEFORE. AND IT'S REDEMPTION. TAKE AWAY RECONSTRUCTION. AND YOU HAVE THE CONFEDERACY CONFEDERACY. THIS SECOND, REDEMPTION DOESN'T IMMEDIATELY. WE GO BACK AND FORTH. INCLUSIVE EQUALITY IS FIGHTING AGAINST EXCLUSIVE. AND WE'RE STILL FIGHTING AND THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT BATTLES TO LOOK AT. AND THE SUPREME COURT DISMANTLING, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS A VERY IMPORTANT THREAD. BUT I WANT TO FOCUS ON ONE WHICH IS JANUARY 6TH. WHAT WAS THAT? WELL IT'S WHITE PARAMILITARIES. THE BOYS, THE OATH KEEPERS, THE THREE PERCENTERS ATTACKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SO MOMENT IN OUR HISTORY DOES THAT ECHO. WHAT DO WE CALL IT WHEN WHITE PARAMILITARIES FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT? WELL, CALL IT 1776. MAYBE IF THEY'RE TRYING TO SEPARATE. AND OF COURSE, THE JANUARY 6TH INSURRECTIONISTS TALKED A LOT ABOUT 1776, THE SONS OF LIBERTY, THE MINUTEMEN. IT'S THE REVOLUTION. BUT IF THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO SEPARATE, IF THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OVER, THAT'S MORE LIKE 1876. THAT'S THE RED SHIRTS, THE WHITE LEAGUE, THE KLAN. THAT'S. AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING NOW IS REDEMPTION ON A NATIONAL SCALE. IT'S AN ATTEMPT BY A MINORITY TO REJECT THE RESULTS OF DEMOCRACY AND CAPTURE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SOME OF THE FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO DO THAT WITHIN THE LAW AND TWISTING THE POLITICAL PROCESS IN OTHER WAYS THAT MIGHT NOT BE LEGAL. AND USING TO. SO THAT STRUGGLE IS NOT OVER. AND WE ARE HELPING THE ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY. IF WE TELL OURSELVES A STORY WHERE WHITE PARAMILITARIES FIGHTING NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ARE THE HEROES, WHERE PATRIOTIC AMERICANS DECIDE, THE GOVERNMENT IS INFRINGING ON THEIR RIGHTS AND SO THEY CAN REBEL. WHAT MATTERS IS NOT DEMOCRACY, BUT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF INSIDERS. JOE BIDEN GAVE A SPEECH IN PHILADELPHIA RECENTLY WHICH. I LIKED A LOT BECAUSE HE SAID THERE'S A REAL THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY. AND HE CALLED ON PEOPLE TO OPPOSE IN THE NAME OF OUR NATIONAL VALUES. HE SAID, YOU CAN'T BE PRO-AMERICA AND PRO INSURRECTION. BUT OF COURSE YOU CAN IF AMERICA IS THE AMERICA OF 1776. THAT'S WHAT 1776 IS ALL ABOUT. OR IF YOU'RE AMERICA IS REVOLUTIONARY, AMERICA OR REDEMPTION AMERICA. THE AMERICA OF 1876. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. IF YOU THE ELECTION TAKE POWER ANYWAY. MAKE SURE THE GOVERNMENT PROTECTS THE PEOPLE IT'S SUPPOSED TO. THE REAL AMERICANS. NOT OUTSIDERS FORCED ON YOU BY SOMEONE ELSE'S OF EQUALITY. SO FOR A LOT OF REASONS, ON JUST ABOUT EVERY DIMENSION THAT YOU CAN THINK OF, I. I HAVE A BETTER STORY. IT'S MORE ACCURATE. IT DOES A BETTER JOB OF EXPLAINING THE HISTORICAL FACTS. IT'S MORE INSPIRING. IT SHOWS A BETTER AMERICA, A NATION WORTHY OF OUR FAITH. IT'S MORE INCLUSIVE. IT HAS ROOM FOR EVERYONE WHO REALLY BELIEVES IN EQUALITY. IT TEACHES US BETTER LESSONS NOT TO OBSESS ABOUT OUR OWN GRIEVANCES, BUT TO SEE THE INJUSTICE IN A WORLD WE DIDN'T MAKE INJUSTICE. THAT'S NOT OUR FAULT. AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT. IT CALLS ON US TO LIVE UP TO SOME FOUNDING MYTH, BUT TO MAKE A FUTURE THAT'S BETTER THAN THE PAST. IT GIVES US THE TOOLS TO DEFEND THE DEMOCRACY THAT SO MANY AMERICANS DIED FOR. AND I BELIEVE THE FIGHT NOT LOST. I BELIEVE THE BEST LIES AHEAD AND NOT BEHIND US. AND NATION THAT NEVER WAS. STILL MAY BE. BUT ULTIMATELY, THAT'S GOING TO BE UP TO YOU. THANK YOU. ALL. RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING FOR AN HOUR. WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF TIME FOR QUESTIONS. I GUESS I'LL JUST CALL ON PEOPLE SHOULD YOU COME TO THE MIKE TO COME TO MIKE? I GUESS THAT'S WHAT THE MIKE'S FOR. HI. MY NAME IS ALEXANDER. I'M A WOW. SO WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AMERICA REALLY IS IN THE EARS TO THE FOUNDERS COULDN'T SAY THAT PERHAPS YOU'RE BEING A LITTLE BIT TOO YOU'RE HOMOGENIZE THE FOUNDERS A BIT TOO MUCH PERHAPS THERE WAS DIFFERENT STRANDS OF THOUGHT THE FOUNDERS THERE WAS EVEN WITHIN INDIVIDUALS, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A VERY CLEAR LIKE THEY BELIEVED IN EQUALITY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY HAD THESE HORRENDOUS IDEAS. YOU COULD SAY THAT THE AMERICA RECONSTRUCTION AND THE REBELS OF THE CIVIL WAR, THEY WERE INHERITING TWO DIFFERENT STRANDS OF THE FOUNDERS THOUGHTS, WOULD YOU SAY? THAT'S CORRECT. OR I WOULD SAY THAT'S PARTIALLY CORRECT. SO THERE'S DEFINITELY DIVERSITY OF OPINION AMONG THE FOUNDERS. SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THE SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION, INDEPENDENCE, THREE QUARTERS OF THEM OWNED SLAVES. SOME OF THEM WERE OPPOSED TO SLAVERY. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE DRAFTERS OF THE 1787 CONSTITUTION. YOU'VE FREE STATES AND SLAVE STATES REPRESENTED. SO, YES, PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS. AND OF COURSE. RIGHT. WHERE DOES THE IDEOLOGY OF EQUALITY COME FROM? IT COMES FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE FOUNDING AMERICA. IT'S AN ALIEN IDEOLOGY THAT IN FROM NOWHERE. SO, YES, IT'S THERE AND MAYBE COULD SAY THAT I'M HOMOGENIZING FOUNDERS A BIT. I THINK THAT I'M CORRECTLY IDENTIFYING DOMINANT POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY I'M DOING AND I THINK THAT STANDARD STORY HOMOGENIZE THE FOUNDERS MASSIVELY IN WRONG DIRECTION AND TAKES WHAT AT BEST A MINORITY VIEW AND ELEVATES IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO BELIEVE, THAT WE'RE COMMITTED AND NOW WE WANT TO BELIEVE THAT WE'RE CONNECTED TO THE FOUNDERS. SO WE HAVE SAY THAT WAS THEIR IDEOLOGY. AND I THINK THAT THIS REALLY PREVENTS US FROM SEEING THE PAST ACCURATELY, IT PREVENTS US FROM UNDERSTANDING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE THE WAY IT WAS UNDERSTOOD AND THE 1787 CONSTITUTION, THE WAY IT WAS UNDERSTOOD. AND IT MAKES US SAY THINGS LIKE. DRED SCOTT HAS TO BE WRONG BECAUSE WE FEEL A CONNECTION TO THE 1787 CONSTITUTION. WE CAN'T ADMIT THAT IT MIGHT JUST HAVE PRODUCED THAT MONSTROUS DECISION. THANK YOU. YEAH, BUT THERE WERE THOSE. THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING WITH THOSE. REALLY GREAT. YOU SWUNG ME. HE'S ALWAYS BEEN TO ME THAT SELF-DETERMINATION AND FREEDOM WAS AN ESSENTIAL TENET. THE FOUNDERS AND THE CONFEDERACY. IT SEEMS TOO HARD ON THAT. I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. I DON'T KNOW THAT. I'M FULLY CONVINCED YET THAT FREEDOM AND EQUALITY WAS NOT ONE OF THEIR CENTRAL VALUES, SHE SAID, YOU KNOW, FOUNDING DECLARATION, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. THEN THE NEXT LINE IS THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. AND YOU SAID THAT THEY'RE REFERRING POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THERE, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE A RELIGIOUS A A RELIGIOUS IDEA. THERE THAT THEY'RE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR, CAPITAL C, BY A CHRISTIAN GOD WHO HAD A LOT OF EQUALITY IDEAS. HOW ARE YOU GOING THE CONCLUSION THAT THAT IDEA IS JUST NOT IN THERE? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S A STRUGGLE BETWEEN FREEDOM AND EQUALITY. NOT GOOD EQUALITY JUST DIDN'T EXIST. WELL, SO, I MEAN, ONE THING YOU CAN DO IS YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PRACTICE WHICH IS NOT VERY EGALITE. SO THERE'S MASSIVE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OUTSIDERS. OF COURSE, THERE'S SLAVERY. THERE IS PRETTY MASSIVE DISCRIMINATE. AGAINST INSIDERS, TOO. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TREATMENT WOMEN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TREATMENT OF NON PROPERTY HOLDING MEN. SO THERE IS A LOT OF INEQUALITY NOW COMPARED TO SOME OF THE FEUDAL THAT EXISTED BEFORE. MAYBE THEY'RE NOT SO BAD. I'M NOT SAYING AMERICAN REVOLUTION IS NOT A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT ON THE PRECISE QUESTION OF INALIENABLE RIGHTS. I THINK IT AGAIN IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT OF THE DECLARATION WORKS AND WHY JEFFERSON SAID THAT. BECAUSE WHEN HE'S TALKING ABOUT INALIENABLE, HE'S NOT SAYING THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT RIGHTS THAT NO ONE SHOULD INTERFERE WITH. RIGHT. THAT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER TO THE DECLARATION AT THE POINT OF SAYING THAT LIBERTY IS IN EVIL MEANS RIGHT. INALIENABLE, VERY PRECISE LEGAL CONCEPT. JEFFERSON'S A LAWYER. HE'S USING IT, UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS. IT MEANS YOU CANNOT GIVE IT AWAY, CANNOT DIVEST YOURSELF OF IT. WHY DOES THAT MATTER? BECAUSE SO FAR, THE DECLARATION IS TRACKING CONSENSUS, ENLIGHTENMENT, SOCIAL THEORY. BUT WHEN YOU GET TO THE QUESTION OF NATURAL RIGHTS, PEOPLE DIVERGE, LOCKE HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW FROM HOBBS, RIGHT? HOBBS SAYS PEOPLE OUT ENDOWED WITH NATURAL LIBERTY AND THEN THEY SURRENDER THAT LIBERTY TO THE SOVEREIGN IRREVOCABLY AND THE SOVEREIGN HAS AUTHORITY OVER THEM AND THEY CAN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT THE SOVEREIGN IS DOING. AND IF YOU GO THAT WAY, THEN YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO REBEL. SO HERE, JEFFERSON, TO PICK BETWEEN LOCKE AND HOBBS, AND HE PICKS LOCKE BY SAYING LIBERTY IS INALIENABLE MEANING CANNOT SURRENDER YOUR RIGHT TO LIBERTY. YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN. IF THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATES YOUR LIBERTY. AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S THERE. ARE COURTS LOOK TO THE DOCUMENTS OF THE FOUNDING AMERICA WHEN DECIDING WHAT'S CONSTITUTIONAL ARE WALKING YOU TO WHAT COMPORTS WITH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM TODAY. IF THE AMERICA THAT WE INHABIT OR THE ONE THAT REPRESENTS OUR VALUES IS THAT AMERICA, SHOULD OUR COURTS TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH? HOW DO YOU OPERATIONALIZE THE VISION OF A SECOND AMERICA? DO YOU STIPULATE? YEAH. SO THE MAIN THING THAT YOU DO IS ORIGINALISM LOOKS AT 1868, WHICH ISN'T NECESSARILY GOING TO GIVE YOU GREAT OUTCOMES DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU'RE DOING, LIKE DOBBS KIND OF AN 1868 ORIGINAL SSM DECISION LOOKING AT THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN. BUT IT MAKES YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN PARTICULAR, IS NOT THE ONE THAT WAS STRUCK IN 1787. SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS A MASSIVE, UNPRECEDENTED OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY, YOU DON'T READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS AND AT WHAT JAMES MADISON SAID ABOUT, THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. YOU UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WIPED OUT THE STATES AND MADE NEW ONES. AND WHEN COMPARE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TO THAT, IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T SO EXTREME AND UNPRECEDENTED. SO YOU'VE GOT AN 1868 BASELINE FOR SOME OF THE FOUNDATIONAL RATHER THAN A 1787. ONE THING HERE YOU TALK TODAY, MY NAME IS DYLAN. THE THREE MATERIAL I JUST HAD A ABOUT IF WE SWITCH PARADIGM FROM THE CONCEPT INDIVIDUALS HAVING THE TO CHALLENGE THAT THE GOVERNMENT TO SOMETHING THAT'S MORE IN LINE WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION AND INEQUALITY. HOW DOES THAT SHIFT CONCEPT OF WHERE THE OR THE KIND OF FLOWS FROM THE PEOPLE FLOWS FROM THE JUST THE AUTHORITY TO GOVERN KIND OF HOW DOES THAT SHIFT. WELL SO NOT SURE THAT IT CHANGED IS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE AUTHORITY COMES BECAUSE THE THEORY THE DECLARATION ABSOLUTELY IS AUTHORITY COMES FROM THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENTS DERIVE THEIR AUTHORITY FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. WHAT IT DOES DO MAYBE IS MAKE US THINK ABOUT DEMOCRACY. SO I SAID THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS NOT A PRO-DEMOCRACY DOCUMENT AND IT'S ASTOUND ING TO ME THAT PEOPLE THINK THIS BECAUSE UNLIKE EQUALITY, THERE IS NOT EVEN A SUGGESTIVE PHRASE IN DECLARATION THAT POINTS TO DEMOCRACY. SO WHAT THAT SUGGESTS IS WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT HOW POWER IS EXERCISED, IF YOU'RE ADOPTING THE PERSPECTIVE OF 1776, IT DOESN'T REALLY IF IT'S A DEMOCRACY OR NOT, ALL YOU NEED IS CONSENT AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF INSIDERS. AND IF YOU LOOK THE 1787 CONSTITUTION, IT'S NOT THAT DEMOCRATIC. I MEAN, IT IS A STEP AGAIN, LIKE IT'S NOT A MONARCHY THAT'S A GOOD THING, BUT IT REALLY NOT MEET OUR MODERN STANDARDS OF POPULAR ACCOUNTABLE BODY AND THE INDEPENDENT STATE THEORY THAT WE'RE SEEING FLOATED NOW IS ACTUALLY A MANIFESTATION THAT RIGHT BECAUSE THE 1787 CONSTITUTION GIVES OVER THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORS TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE. THEY DON'T HAVE HAVE A POPULAR ELECTION YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT UNLESS STATE ALLOWS YOU SO WE DO SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THERE RIGHT. BECAUSE WITH THE GETTYSBURG WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE AND THAT THE LEGITIMATING PRINCIPLE FOR GOVERNMENT GOING FORWARD I SO NOW WE CAN ASK IS THIS GOVERNMENT FAIRLY REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF EVERYONE? DOES EVERYONE HAVE AN EQUAL IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS, WHICH IS A I THINK YOU CAN'T ASK IF YOU'RE GUIDED BY THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. SO IN 1868, OBVIOUSLY HALF, OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION STILL HAD NO LEGAL RIGHTS. TALKING ABOUT WOMEN. SO IF WE'RE BASING OUR CONCEPTION OF EQUALITY ON 1868, HOW DO YOU SQUARE THAT WITH THE CLEARLY LIKE SUBJUGATED OF WOMEN. YEAH. SO THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRACTICES AND ATTITUDES OF 1868, IT'S NOT PRETTY PICTURE, RIGHT? AND THIS IS WHAT DID DOBBS SAID YOU KNOW HEY, WHAT KIND OF RIGHTS DID WOMEN HAVE IN 1868? AND THE ANSWER IS THEY WERE A LOT OF RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT AS EQUALS. AND MAYBE THE BEST EXPRESSION OF THIS IS A KIND OF INFAMOUS CONCURRING OPINION BY JUSTICE BRADLEY IN 72 IN THE CASE BRADWELL AGAINST ILLINOIS, WHERE WOMAN WANTS TO CHALLENGE A STATE LAW THAT PROHIBITS HER FROM BECOMING A LAWYER. AND THE SUPREME COURT SORT LAUGHS HER OUT OF COURT AND. JUSTICE BRADLEY CONCURRING SAYS THE NATURAL AND PROPER TIMIDITY AND DELICACY THAT BELONG TO THE FEMALE SEX EVIDENTLY UNFITTING HER FOR MANY OF THE OCCUPATIONS CIVIL LIFE. SO THAT'S THE ATTITUDE IN 1868. AND IF YOU SAY WE'RE BASING OUR STANDARDS ON THOSE ATTITUDES, THEN YOU GET DECISIONS LIKE DOBBS BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND. DOBBS IS NOT ORIGINALIST. DOBBS IS DOING WEIRD HISTORICAL ANALYSIS THAT IS NOT UNLESS YOU THINK THAT'S WHAT THE DUE CLAUSE TELLS YOU TO DO. USE THE ATTITUDES OF 1868. I DON'T THINK DOES, AND I DON'T THINK THE EQUAL PROTECTION DOES THAT EITHER. SORT OF MORE. I THINK THE EQUAL PROTECTION TELLS YOU THAT GOVERNMENTS CANNOT IN A WAY THAT IS ARBITRARY, OPPRESSIVE OR UNJUSTIFIED. AND IF YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER SOMETHING ARBITRARY, OPPRESSIVE OR UNJUSTIFIED, LOOK AT CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES, LOOK AT WHAT WE KNOW TO BE TRUE NOW AND WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE MORALLY CORRECT. AND THAT ACTUALLY GIVES YOU THE KIND OF EXPANSIVE OF PROPULSIVE DOCTRINE THAT HISTORICALLY HAD WITH EQUAL PROTECTION, WHERE SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, PEOPLE'S MINDS, AND THEN THEIR VICTORIES ARE SORT OF RATIFIED BY SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, RECOGNIZING EQUAL STATUS. AND I THINK YOU DO HAVE THAT WITH RESPECT TO, SAY, WOMEN'S POLITICAL RIGHTS THROUGH THE IDEA OF DEMOCRACY WITH THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS, ACCORDING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THERE NOTHING WRONG WITH DENYING WOMEN THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE INSIDERS, AS LONG AS THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS ARE BEING PROTECTED, THEY'RE NOT. BECAUSE IF YOU DENY PEOPLE A VOICE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS, YOU TEND NOT PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS. BUT THEY COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, FOUNDING COULD SAY THEY WERE DOING THAT, WHEREAS IF HAVE A PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY, THE IDEA YOU KNOW, THE WAY TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE PROTECTING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS AND TREATING THEM FAIRLY IS TO GIVE THEM A VOICE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. AND THAT'S IDEA THAT ALSO HAS THIS PROPULSIVE EXPANSIVE FORCE THAT CAN LEAD TO BROADEN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OVER TIME. YEAH YEAH. DO WE DO HAVE TO STOP HIM OR WE LIKE I CAN I CAN HOLD IT OR MAYBE DO ONE MORE I THINK WE DO ONE MORE. I GUESS I FEEL LIKE THAT'S KIND OF LIKE, OKAY SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE NARRATIVE OF THE FOUNDING OR LIKE WHERE IT IS THAT OUR RIGHTS COME FROM AS A MEANS OF, I PRESUME, JUSTIFYING THE POLITICAL ACTIONS THAT KIND AND YOU BRING UP REAGAN. AND SO THE CONTRAST BETWEEN SPECIFICALLY REAGAN AND YOUR VISION SEEMS TO BE THAT REAGAN'S VISION AND OFFER TO AMERICA IN 80 ELECTION IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SPECIFICALLY WHITE AMERICA TO TO LOOK AWAY AND FORGET THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE LAST 20 YEARS TO ABSOLVE THEMSELVES OF SOME KIND OF OBLIGATION TO ACTIVELY SEEK OUT, YOU KNOW, A REDRESS OF HARMS, WHEREAS YOUR VISION CREATES AND IN AN OBLIGATION AND MAKES IT INCUMBENT UPON US TO NOT ONLY BEAR WITNESS INJUSTICES, BUT YOU ACTIVELY SEEK REDRESS FOR THOSE INJUSTICES. AND SO, LIKE THE POLITICAL TENSION SEEMS TO BE THAT LIKE THERE IS OPPORTUNITY COST FOR PEOPLE WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM AN INHERENTLY UNJUST SYSTEM. DO YOU ALWAYS LIKE TAKE THE PATH LEAST RESISTANCE TOWARDS THE VISION, THE NARRATIVE THAT JUSTIFIES. YOU KNOW, I'LL CALL IT LAZY, MUST BE A LITTLE SO LIKE WHAT IS LIKE WHAT DO YOU SEE AS LIKE THE APPLICABILITY OF VISION TO, YOU KNOW, THE ELECTORAL POLITICAL CONTEXT? LIKE HOW DO WE BUILD THIS AS A VISION NOT ONLY OF HOW TO HEW THE COUNTRY'S FOUNDING IDEALS OF HOW TO APPROACH THE LAW, BUT TO DO DEMOCRACY. WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THE ANSWER TO IS SORT OF STRAIGHTFORWARD, ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT NOT BE SATISFYING TO YOU, WHICH IS IF PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THIS AS THE AMERICAN STORY AND IF THEY THINK ABOUT THE AMERICAN HEROES AS THE PEOPLE WHO SEE INJUSTICE IN THE WORLD AND WORK TO CHANGE IT, EVEN IF IT BENEFITS THEM, THEN YOU GET A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE BECAUSE THE STANDARD STORY TELLS PEOPLE, AMERICA ALWAYS FUNDAMENTALLY BEEN DEVOTED TO EQUALITY AND WE ARE PROGRESSING TOWARDS THAT OVER TIME. AND BASICALLY, LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE DO THAT MUCH, RIGHT? YOU CAN BE A SORT OF COMFORTABLE PERSON WHO DOESN'T LIKE INJUSTICE BUT DOESN'T LIKE CONFLICT EITHER. AND YOU SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, LET'S JUST WAIT. THINGS WORK OUT. THIS IS BASICALLY MARTIN LUTHER KING COMPLAINS ABOUT WITH THE WHITE SO LETTER FROM THE BIRMINGHAM JAIL HE'S SAYING I HAVE ALMOST COME TO BELIEVE THAT THE GREATER BARRIER TO ADVANCEMENT TOWARDS EQUALITY IS NOT THE KLAN AND EXPLICITLY RACIST PEOPLE, BUT THE WHITE MODERATES WHO ARE LIKE, YES, OF COURSE, AGREE WITH YOUR GOALS, BUT KNOW, BE CALM, BE PATIENT. EVERYTHING IS GOING TO GET BETTER BECAUSE IT INEVITABLE GETS BETTER BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA AND EQUALITY IS IN OUR SOUL. AND IF YOU'RE LIKE, NO, EQUALITY IS AN IDEA THAT COMES IN AND FIGHTS AND. YOU ONLY ACHIEVE EQUALITY THROUGH STRUGGLE. AND WHAT IS BEST ABOUT COMES FROM ACTUALLY THOSE INTENSE MOMENTS OF STRUGGLE. RIGHT? WITHOUT SLAVERY, YOU DON'T ABOLITION. WITHOUT THE CIVIL WAR, YOU DON'T GET THE 14TH AMENDMENT WITHOUT THE INJUSTICE PEOPLE FOUGHT AGAINST, WE WOULD NOT BE THE NATION WE ARE. SO IF YOU TAKE THAT VIEW THEN? I THINK MUCH MORE LIKE A CALL TO ACTION. HOW DO YOU GET PEOPLE TO SEE THAT? WELL, I THINK WE HAVE TO LIKE CHANGE THE WAY WE TEACH AMERICAN HISTORY. SO STARTING AT LIKE THE HIGH LEVEL, I WOULD LIKE AN UNDERSTANDING OF AMERICAN HISTORY THAT CENTERS RECONSTRUCT. ALL RIGHT. THANKS SO MUCH MUCH. 

End of Transcript for “Reconstruction & America's Story”, October 6, 2022, Lectures in History Material

“Rethinking America's Founding Narrative”, “The Constitution and Declaration of Independence: A Contrary View,” March 3, 2020, Kermit Roosevelt esq., Book TV C-Span 3, Video Duration 1:46:22, at < https://www.c-span.org/video/?469938-1/rethinking-americas-founding-narrative# >.  

Transcript for the March 3, 2020 talk, “Rethinking America's Founding Narrative”, on C-Span's American History TV: Note this is the uncorrected transcript produced by using unedited closed captions from the Television Broadcast.  This is not a particularly smooth or polished text, though it does have the virtue of having the statements by the various speakers (Kermit Roosevelt esq., his interviewer and host of the C-Span show Ruth Robbins, and the various Questioners) identified, but again it is what is available.

General Introduction  KERMIT ROOSEVELT, A LAW PROFESSOR AND THE GREAT-GREAT-GRANDSON OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT, PRESENTED A TALK. PROFESSOR ROOSEVELT ARGUES THE AMERICA OF TODAY DID NOT EMERGE FROM THE REVOLUTION AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT TRACE VALUES BACK TO THE FOUNDERS. INSTEAD HE ARGUES THAT THROUGH FAILURES AND REINVENTION'S WE'VE USE THE CONSTITUTION TO CREATE MODERN CORE VALUES. THE SMITHSONIAN ASSOCIATES HOSTED THE EVENT. 

Ruth Robbins GOOD EVENING, CAN YOU HEAR ME? GREAT. MY NAME IS RUTH ROBBINS AND IT IS A PLEASURE TO WELCOME YOU HERE TONIGHT FOR OUR PROGRAM. BEFORE WE GET STARTED JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS. IF YOU HAVE ELECTRONIC DEVICES, NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO TURN THEM OFF. AS USUAL, THERE IS NO PHOTOGRAPHY AND NO FILMING. ALSO, IF YOU ARE WONDERING WHAT THE EQUIPMENT IS IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM, IT IS C-SPAN SO SHOW YOUR NICEST SMILE, BRUSH HER HAIR, GET READY IN CASE YOU GET A CAMEO. WHEN WE GET TO THE Q&A PART THERE IS A MICROPHONE IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM AND WE WILL LET YOU KNOW WHEN IT IS TIME. YOU WILL LINE UP THERE TO ASK YOUR QUESTIONS. IT IS ALWAYS WORTHWHILE TO REVISIT THE DOCUMENTS THAT SET US APART FROM BRITISH RULE AND CREATED THE FRAMEWORK FOR OUR GOVERNMENT. OUR GUEST SPEAKER, KERMIT ROOSEVELT, EXPLORES THESE DOCUMENTS AND SHARES INTERPRETATION OF THEIR MEANING AND RELEVANCE. PROFESSOR ROOSEVELT TEACHES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL. HE WAS BORN AND RAISED IN D.C. AND ATTENDED HARVARD AND YALE. BEFORE JOINING, HE SERVED AS A LAW CLERK TO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE DAVID SOUTER. HIS BOOK SETS STANDARDS BY WHICH CITIZENS CAN DETERMINE WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT IS ABUSING AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. HE ALSO TEACHES CREATIVE WRITING AND IS THE AUTHOR OF TWO NOVELS. " IN THE SHADOW OF THE LAW" AND "ALLEGIANCE." PLEASE JOIN ME IN A ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR PROFESSOR ROOSEVELT. [APPLAUSE] 

Kermit Roosevelt III THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. HAPPY SUPER TUESDAY. [LAUGHTER] AS YOU KNOW, IT IS SUPER TUESDAY, THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF CHOOSING THEIR NOMINEE. LATER ON WE WILL HAVE THE GENERAL ELECTION AND CHOOSE OUR PRESIDENT. THAT CHOICE WILL REFLECT SOMETHING ABOUT WHO WE ARE AS A NATION. THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT. WHO WE ARE, HOW WE DECIDE WHO WE ARE AND WHAT OUR SENSE OF OURSELVES MEANS FOR OUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR SENSE OF OURSELVES AS A COUNTRY. SO, WHO ARE WE? WE ARE AMERICANS. THIS IS THE MOST AMERICAN SLIDE I COULD FIND. [LAUGHTER] WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AN AMERICAN AND HOW WE DO WE DECIDE THAT? WHAT GIVES US A SENSE OF WHAT AMERICA MEANS? THE FIRST POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT STORIES TELL US WHO THEY ARE. THEY ORGANIZE THE WORLD. THIS IS TRUE OF INDIVIDUALS. WHEN PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THEIR LIVES THEY THINK ABOUT THEM IN NARRATIVE FORM. THEY FIND MEANING AND EXPERIENCE. THEY FIND THEMES, HEROES, VILLAINS. JAMES JOYCE SAID THIS IS THE ARTIST'S TASK, TRANSFORMING THE DAILY BREAD OF EXPERIENCE INTO EVERLASTING LIFE. IN THAT SENSE WE ARE ALL ARTISTS. WE ARE THE AUTHORS OF OUR OWN STORIES. NOT BECAUSE WE DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS -- WE DON'T GET TO DECIDE THAT -- BUT BECAUSE WE DECIDE WHAT IT MEANS. WE DECIDE HOW IT IS INTERPRETED AND USUALLY WE PICK INTERPRETATIONS THAT FLATTER OURSELVES. WE END UP BEING THE HEROES OF OUR OWN STORIES. THIS IS TRUE FOR INDIVIDUALS AND ALSO TRUE FOR NATIONS. PEOPLE HAVE A SENSE OF NATIONAL IDENTITY THAT COMES FROM STORIES ABOUT THE NATION'S HISTORY. THAT IS WHAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT. I WILL TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT STORIES OF AMERICA. WHERE THEY COME FROM, HOW THEY RELATE TO EACH OTHER, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT WANT TO SAY ONE THING ABOUT STORIES. THEY ARE POWERFUL. I AM A LAW PROFESSOR AND BEFORE THAT I WAS A LAWYER. I WAS DOING A LITIGATION AND IT WAS MY JOB -- IN SOME WAYS IT IS STILL MY JOB -- TO MAKE PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME ABOUT THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW. I LEARNED SOMETHING WHILE WORKING AS A LAWYER. THAT HAS BEEN REINFORCED FROM EXPERIENCES WITH LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP WHICH IS THAT SOMETIMES, ON SOME ISSUES, YOU CAN PRESENT A STRONG, LOGICAL ARGUMENT AND PEOPLE WILL CHANGE THEIR MINDS. SOMETIMES THE VOICE THAT PERSUADES IS AN ANALYTICAL VOICE. THAT IS NOT TRUE ALL THE TIME. IN PARTICULAR IT IS NOT TRUE IF YOU'RE DEALING WITH AN ISSUE THAT RELATES TO PEOPLE'S IDENTITY, THEIR SENSE OF SELF. IN THOSE SITUATIONS YOU CAN MAKE THE MOST LOGICAL ARGUMENT IN THE WORLD AND IT WILL NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT. LOGIC DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR MINDS ABOUT WHO THEY ARE. THERE HAS BEEN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH ON THIS AND IT SHOWS PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY INCREDIBLY RESISTANT TO LOGICAL ARGUMENT IF IT CONFLICTS WITH THEIR NARRATIVE OF THE WORLD. IF THE CONFLICTS WITH THE STORY THEY TELL THEMSELVES TO MAKE SENSE OF THE WORLD. THEY DID A STUDY WHERE THE TWO PEOPLE WITH CERTAIN BELIEFS AND IT WAS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. THEY TOOK SKEPTICS AND BELIEVERS AND THEY TOOK EACH GROUP AND EXPOSED THEM TO FACTS THAT SUGGESTED THEIR BELIEFS WERE WRONG. THEY GOT DIFFERENT INFORMATION AND IN EACH CASE THEY GOT INFORMATION THAT CHALLENGE THEIR BELIEF. YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THIS WOULD MAKE THEM LESS CONFIDENT. THE RESULT WAS THE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES EXPRESSED GREATER CONFIDENCE IN THOSE BELIEFS. THEY FELT A THREAT TO THEIR IDENTITY AND THEY RESPONDED BY REAFFIRMING IT. THOSE BELIEFS WERE NOT JUST FACTUAL BELIEFS ABOUT THE WORLD, THEY WERE BELIEFS THAT SIGNAL MEMBERSHIP IN A COMMUNITY. BECAUSE OF THAT'S THEY WERE PART OF PEOPLE'S IDENTITY, PART OF THE STORY THEY TOLD THEMSELVES. HERE'S AN ORDINARY FACTUAL QUESTION -- IS IT RAINING OUTSIDE OR NOT? YOUR BELIEF ABOUT THAT DOES NOT RELATE YOUR IDENTITY AND WITH QUESTIONS LIKE THAT PEOPLE DO CHANGE THEIR MIND IF THEY ARE PRESENTED WITH CONTRARY EVIDENCE. WITH OTHER THINGS, BELIEFS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO IDENTITY, YOU CANNOT DISLODGE THOSE BELIEFS BY FACT. THE ANALYTICAL VOICE DOES NOT PERSUADE. WHAT DOES? THIS IS ANOTHER THING I LEARNED AS A LAWYER. I THINK IT IS THE MOST IMPORT THING. IT IS WHAT I TRY TO TEACH MY STUDENTS IN THE CREATIVE WRITING SEMINAR I TEACH. IF YOU ARE WONDERING WHY THERE IS A CREATIVE WRITING AT THE LAW SCHOOL, THIS IS WHY. THE NARRATIVE VOICE PERSUADES. TO CHANGE BELIEFS CONNECTED TO IDENTITY, TO THE STORY WE TELL OURSELVES ABOUT THE WORLD AND OUR PLACE IN IT, YOU HAVE TO OFFER A DIFFERENT STORY. YOU HAVE TO OFFER A STORY THAT OPENS A DIFFERENT WAY OF UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD. YOU CAN CHANGE PEOPLE'S MIND IF YOU TALK TO THEM THE WAY THEIR INTERIOR VOICE DOES AND FOR MOST PEOPLE, THE INTERIOR VOICE IS NOT GIVING ARGUMENTS, IT IS TELLING STORIES. STORIES TELL US WHO WE ARE BOTH AS INDIVIDUALS AND AS COUNTRIES. STORIES ARE POWERFUL. FREQUENTLY THEY CANNOT BE DISLODGED BY REASONED ARGUMENT OR LOGICAL ANALYSIS. YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD SOME PEOPLE SAY IT TAKES A THEORY TO BE A THEORY, I SAY IT TAKES A STORY TO BE A STORY. WHAT I WANT TO DO NOW IS TELL YOU SOME OF THE STORIES ABOUT AMERICA. ABOUT WHO WE ARE. THESE DIFFERENT STORIES SAY DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT THE PAST BUT, PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF THE ESSENCE OF AMERICA. WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AMERICAN. I'M GOING TO COMPARE THEM, ANALYZE THEM, I WILL BE DOING SOME LOGICAL ARGUMENT -- I CANNOT REALLY GET AWAY FROM THAT -- BUT IN THE END, I HOPE YOU LIKE THE SAME STORY I DO. NOT BECAUSE OF THE ARGUMENTS BUT BECAUSE IT IS A BETTER STORY. IT SHOWS US IN A BETTER LIGHT. IT IS MORE INCLUSIVE, OPTIMISTIC. IT IS, I AM GOING TO SAY, MORE AMERICAN. I AM GOING TO START WITH WHAT I CALL THE STANDARD STORY. ACCORDING TO THE STORY AMERICAN HISTORY, THE HISTORY OF AMERICA AS A NATION, STARTS WITH THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. HERE WE GO. IN A STANDARD STORY SHOULD BE SIMILAR THIS IS WHAT WE SAY IN OUR CIVIC RELIGION OR BASIC CELEBRATIONS OF AMERICA. THE STANDARD STORY SAYS LONG AGO, BACK IN 1776, OUR GREAT FOUNDERS WROTE DOWN WONDERFUL PRINCIPLES. THEY CALLED THESE SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS, INCLUDING LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. OUR FOUNDERS FOUGHT A WAR FOR THOSE PRINCIPLES. THEY BUILT THE SOCIETY AROUND THEM AND THE CONSTITUTION WAS THEIR VEHICLE FOR CARRYING THOSE PRINCIPLES INTO EXECUTION. HOLD ON. THERE'S THE CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION, ACCORDING TO STANDARD STORY, SETS OUT OUR FUNDAMENTAL VALUES. WHAT ARE THOSE? LIBERTY AND EQUALITY. IT TELLS US WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AMERICAN. IT TELLS US WHO WE ARE. FROM WHERE THE 200 YEARS, OUR CONSTITUTION HAS SERVED US WELL BECAUSE OF THE WISDOM OF THE FOUNDERS. OUR TASKS AS AMERICANS IS TO LIVE UP TO THEIR EXAMPLE. TO FULFILL THEIR VISION OF AMERICA. TO BE TRUE TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT STARTED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WERE CODIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION. AMERICAN HISTORY, THE STANDARD STORY, HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN EASY. WE HAVE NOT ALWAYS LOOKED UP TO THOSE PRINCIPLES. WE HAD SLAVERY WHICH IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. BUT WE FOUGHT A WAR FOR THOSE PRINCIPLES AGAIN. THE CIVIL WAR WAS FOUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID SO. THAT IS AN ACTUAL PHOTO OF LINCOLN DELIVERING THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS. IT IS NOT VERY GOOD BUT HE IS THERE SOMEWHERE. [LAUGHTER] IN THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS LINCOLN LOOKS BACK TO THE DECLARATION AS THE BIRTH OF THE NATION. IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF ARITHMETIC TO FIGURE THIS OUT BUT HE IS GIVING THE ADDRESS IN 1863 AND SAYS "FOUR SCORE AND SEVEN YEARS AGO" AND SUBTRACT THAT FROM 1863 AND WHAT YOU GET? YOU GET 1776 AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. LINCOLN INVOKED THIS PRINCIPLES AND SAYS "THE NATION IS CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY AND DEDICATED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL." THE CIVIL WAR IS A CHALLENGE BUT ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AMERICANS TO MOVE FORWARD, TO REALIZE THE PROMISE OF THE DECLARATION. OF COURSE, THE STANDARD STORY CONCEDES THAT EVEN AFTER THE CIVIL WAR, WORK IS NOT DONE. RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION PERSIST. THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT RISES UP TO CHALLENGE THE STARKER ASPECTS OF AMERICAN LIFE. IT DOES SO AGAIN IN THE NAME OF THE DECLARATION. THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT SPONSORS THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON IN 1963. MARTIN LUTHER KING GIVE SAYS I HAVE A DREAM SPEECH FROM THE STEPS OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL. THIS IS A MUCH BETTER PHOTO. [LAUGHTER] HE TALKS ABOUT THE FOUNDERS, THE ARCHITECTS OF OUR PUBLIC, THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE MAGNIFICENT WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. THEY PROMISED, HE SAID, BLACK AS WELL AS WHITE WOULD BE GUARANTEED UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. WE HAVE FALLEN SHORT, HE SAYS, WENDY DISAGGREGATION, TO DIAL TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE, AND REACHES OF THE PROMISES MADE. HE DREAMS OF A DAY WHEN WE WILL RISE UP AND LIVE OUT THE TRUE MEANING THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. MAYBE THAT DAY HAS NOT COME YET. THE STANDARD STORY CONCEDES BUT IT IS GETTING CLOSER BECAUSE THE STORY OF AMERICA IS LIVING UP TO THE IDEALS OF OUR FOUNDERS. THE IDEALS THAT STARTED US ON THIS JOURNEY. WE MOVE FORWARD BUT WE ARE GUIDED BY THE PAST, BY THE SPIRIT OF 1776. WE REMEMBER, AS JOHN F. KENNEDY SAID, THAT WE ARE THE HERIS OF THAT FIRST REVOLUTION AND CARRIED THAT BANNER. THE FLAG OF FREEDOM, THE FLAG OF EQUALITY. HERE YOU HAVE THREE MEN MARCHING FORWARD AND IN THE BACKGROUND, THE BETSY ROSS FLAG. THIS IS WHAT I AM GOING TO CALL OUR STANDARD STORY. THIS IS WHAT WE USUALLY TELL OURSELVES TO EXPLAIN WHO WE ARE. WE ARE THE HERIRS OF THE FIRST REVOLUTION. AMERICAN HISTORY STARTS WITH THAT DECLARATION. IT STARTS ON A HIGH NOTE AND WE ARE BASICALLY TRYING TO SUSTAIN IT. WE ARE TRYING TO LIVE UP TO THE IDEALS OF THE FOUNDERS AND SIGNERS. WE ARE FOLLOWING THEIR WISDOM AND FOR 200 YEARS IT HAS POINTED THE WAY TO A BETTER AMERICA AND A MORE PERFECT UNION. I AM GOING TO TELL YOU A COUPLE OF OTHER STORIES. FIRST, WANT TO SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS ONE. THE FIRST THING TO NOTE IS THAT IS AIT IS A BACKWARD LOOKING STORY. THE DECLARATION IS THE CENTRAL DOCUMENT IN THE STORY, IT MAY BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVEN THE CONSTITUTION. THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION IS IMPORTANT TOO. THE CONSTITUTION HAS THE ANSWERS TO OUR CURRENT PROBLEMS. AMERICA SEEMS TO BE ADRIFT, PEOPLE THINK. WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? GO BACK TO THE WISDOM OF THE FOUNDERS. FOCUS ON THE CONSTITUTION. FOCUS ON THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSTITUTION. LIVE UP TO THE IDEALS OF THE FOUNDERS, BE MORE LIKE THEM, THE WAY FORWARD IS BY RECOVERING THE GREATNESS OF THE PAST. FIRST, BACKWARD LOOKING STORY. SECOND, THIS IS A SUCCESS STORY. YES, WE HAVE HAD OUR DIFFICULTIES BUT IF YOU LOOK BACK, AMERICA ALWAYS SUCCEEDS. WE ALWAYS TRIUMPH AND WHY IS THAT? IT IS BECAUSE OF THE WISDOM OF THE FOUNDERS AND THE IDEALS OF THE DECLARATION. THE CIVIL WAR IS PROBABLY THE BEST EXAMPLE. IT IS A TERRIBLE WAR, YES, THAT THE IDEALS OF THE DECLARATION TRIUMPH AND WE IMPROVE. WE TAKE A BIG STEP FORWARD TOWARD MORE FULLY REALIZING THOSE IDEALS. BACKWARD-LOOKING , SUCCESS, AND STORY CONTINUITY. IT GOES FROM THE SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION, TO THE DRAFTERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO US IN THE PRESENT DAY. WE ARE THE HEIRS OF THAT REVOLUTION. THIS IS RELATED TO THE FACT IT IS A SUCCESS STORY BECAUSE IT IS TELLING US WE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN. WE ARE THE SAME NATION. THE SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION, THE DRAFTERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, THEY GOT IT RIGHT. WE ARE LIVING IN THE WORLD THEY DESIGNED. WE ARE FIGHTING FOR THE IDEALS THEY CHAMPIONED. THIS IS A NICE STORY IN A LOT OF WAYS. YOU CAN SEE WHY IT APPEALS TO PEOPLE, I THINK. IT SAYS WE ARE BASICALLY GOOD, WE AMERICANS. WE START WITH GOOD IDEALS AND WE DON'T ALWAYS LIVE UP TO THEM BUT WE ARE GETTING BETTER. THERE IS A SENSE OF INEVITABLE PROGRESS AND WHEN THINGS LOOK DARK ANSWERS EXIST IF WE LOOK BACK TO FIND THEM. THERE IS AUTHORITY IN THE PAST. IN A MOMENT OF UNITY EVERYBODY CAN RALLY AROUND, EVERYONE CAN SHARON. EVERYONE FEELS A CONNECTION TO THE FOUNDING. ONE PROBLEM IS THAT IT REALLY IS NOT TRUE. I KNOW I SAID LOGICAL ARGUMENTS DO NOT DISLODGE STORIES BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE STORY. WHICH MIGHT NOT CHANGE YOUR MIND. I HOPE THAT IT WILL PROVOKE YOU TO QUESTION THE STORY A BIT. I'M GOING TO PRESENT YOU WITH SOME CLAIMS YOU WILL FIND SURPRISING. THAT YOU DON'T HEAR IN THE STANDARD STORY, YOU DON'T HERE VERY MUCH AT ALL. HERE'S THE FIRST ONE. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DOES NOT ACTUALLY SET OUT OUR MODERN VALUES OF LIBERTY AND EQUALITY. IN FACT, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH SLAVERY. THIS SHOULD BE A SURPRISE. I DON'T THINK ANYONE ELSE SAYS THIS. OFTEN IF YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON SAYING SOMETHING, IT'S CRAZY AND YOU ARE WRONG. BUT HEAR ME OUT. I HAVE BECOME QUITE CONVINCED OF THIS. GENERALLY SPEAKING PEOPLE SAY, OF COURSE, THERE IS CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. BUT LET US LOOK AT THE DECLARATION AND THINK ABOUT WHAT IT'S VALUES ACTUALLY ARE. HERE IS THE PREAMBLE OF THE DECLARATION AT THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION TO. THAT IS APPROPRIATE. AFTER THE PREAMBLE AND A LITTLE BIT OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WE GET GRIEVANCES AGAINST KING GEORGE. BAD THINGS HE HAS DONE. THOSE ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT. THAT IS EVIDENCE THE FOUNDERS ARE SETTING OUT IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ARGUMENT BUT THEY ARE NOT THE ARGUMENT. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS AN ARGUMENT OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT TRIES TO ESTABLISH THE COMPANIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN DECLARING INDEPENDENCE AND THROWING OFF THE AUTHORITY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE. TO UNDERSTAND THE DECLARATION THE CRUCIAL THING IS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE ARGUMENT WORKS AND THE USE IT MAKES OF THESE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THE DECLARATION MAKES IN A SECOND. FIRST, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ARGUMENT IT DOES NOT MAKE WHICH IS THE AGAINST SLAVERY. WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THE DECLARATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH SLAVERY? BECAUSE OF THESE SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS. THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS INCLUDING LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. NOW, ARE THOSE PRINCIPLES INCONSISTENT WITH SLAVERY? YOU CAN START WITH THEM AND MAKE AN ANTISLAVERY ARGUMENT. IT WOULD GO LIKE THIS. PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL THEREFORE NO ONE IS ENTITLED, BY BIRTH, TO DEMAND SOMEONE ELSE BE HIS LIFE. SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE THE POWER TO ENSLAVE SOMEONE ELSE. DOING SO COULD BE CONSIDERED A FORM OF LIBERTY -- JUST DOING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO -- BUT IT CONFLICTS WITH THE SLAVES' NATURAL RIGHT CELEBRITY LIBERTY. THAT IS AN INFRINGEMENT ON NATURAL RIGHTS. THAT STRIP. 'S TRIP. -- THAT IS TRUE. THIS IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IN THE POLITICAL WORLD THERE ARE LOTS OF INFRINGEMENTS UPON NATURAL LIBERTY. IF YOU USE YOUR LIBERTY TO STEAL SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY, WE WILL LOCK YOU UP. WE TAKE AWAY YOUR LIBERTY. IF YOU COMMIT A SERIOUS CRIME, WILL TAKE YOUR LIFE. THAT IS WHAT WE DO EVEN TO OUR OWN CITIZENS. MEMBERS OF OUR POLITICAL COMMUNITY BECAUSE THOSE DEPRIVATIONS OF NATURAL RIGHTS ARE JUSTIFIED. IN FACT, THE HALLMARK OF CIVIL SOCIETY IS THAT WHEN PEOPLE COME TOGETHER TO FORM A SOCIETY THEY SURRENDER ASPECTS OF THEIR NATURAL LIBERTY. THEIR NATURAL LIBERTY IS TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM. THIS IS TRUE OF THE PEOPLE WHO FORM A COMMUNITY, OF THE INSIDERS, AND EVEN MORE TRUE OF PEOPLE OUTSIDE OUR POLITICAL COMMUNITY. HOW DOES OUR NATION RELATE TO NONCITIZENS? SOMETIMES QUITE HARSHLY. IF YOU ARE AN ENEMY SOLDIER, WE TAKE YOUR LIFE WITHOUT WORRYING TOO MUCH ABOUT YOUR NATURAL RIGHTS. THAT IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE WE ARE PROTECTING OUR POLITICAL COMMUNITY. DIFFERENT FACTORS COME INTO PLAY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OUTSIDERS. THE ARGUMENT GETS EVEN MORE COMPLICATED. IT IS EVEN MORE COMPLICATED IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM WHERE SLAVERY EXISTS ALREADY AND THE CHOICE IS NOT SHOULD WE START SLAVERY, BUT SHOULD BE AND SLAVERY. IT IS POSSIBLE TO THINK -- AND THOMAS JEFFERSON DID THINK BEST -- THAT THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION WAS NO, SLAVERY SHOULD NEVER HAVE COME TO AMERICA. THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION WAS ALSO NO. GIVEN THAT SLAVERY EXISTED MAINTAINING IT WAS THE BEST OPTION. SO, WHAT IF I SAID SO FAR? I SAID THAT FROM THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DECLARATION YOU CAN GET AN ARGUMENT THAT SLAVERY IS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. THAT DOES NOT ACTUALLY TELL YOU SLAVERY IS WRONG. SOME VIOLATIONS OF NATURAL RIGHTS ARE JUSTIFIED. THAT IS PARTICULARLY TRUE IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OUTSIDERS, PEOPLE NOT MEMBERS OF YOUR POLITICAL COMMUNITY, AND MORE TRUE IF IT EXISTS ALREADY. TO GET TO THE CONCLUSION SLAVERY IS WRONG YOU NEED ANOTHER STEP. YOU NEED TO SAY THE JUSTIFICATIONS PUT FORWARD FOR SLAVERY ARE INADEQUATE. WHAT WERE THE JUSTIFICATIONS? SOME PEOPLE SUPPORTED SLAVERY AS A POSITIVE THING. THEY SAID SLAVES GET CHRISTIANITY, CIVILIZATION. THEN THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT THINK SLAVERY WAS GOOD BUT NONETHELESS THOUGHT SLAVERY IN AMERICA SHOULD BE CONTINUED. THEY SAID SLAVES, IF FREED, COULD NOT BE ASSIMILATED INTO AMERICAN SOCIETY. THEY WOULD POSE A DANGER TO WHITES. THIS WAS JEFFERSON'S VIEW. HE SAID SHOULD BE GIVE OUR SLEDS FREEDOM AND A DAGGER? THOSE ARE TERRIBLE JUSTIFICATIONS. THEY ARE NOT TRUE. YOU DON'T NEED MUCH OF AN ARGUMENT TO REVIEW THEM BUT MY POINT IS THE DECLARATION DOES NOT GIVE YOU ARGUMENT OF THAT FORM. IT GIVES YOU A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. IT GIVES YOU A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE LIBERTY AND EQUALITY OF INDIVIDUALS. IT IS CONCERNED WITH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLITICAL COMMUNITIES. BETWEEN ONE PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO DISSOLVE THE POLITICAL BANDS AND ASSUME SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION. THIS IS WHAT THE DECLARATION SAYS IN ITS FIRST SENTENCE. IT TELLS YOU WHAT IT IS ABOUT. "THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD ENTITLE INDIVIDUALS TO LIBERTY AND EQUALITY? " NO. THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD TO SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATUS. STATUS AS NATIONS BASICALLY. THE ARGUMENT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DOES MAKE IS NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, IT IS ABOUT NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. THAT IS WHAT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND NOT DECLARATION -- THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE NOT TO DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. THEY ARE NOT THERE TO GENERATE AN ANTISLAVERY ARGUMENT. WE SAW WHAT THAT ARGUMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE. WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT THE DECLARATION ACTUALLY MAKES? IT IS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHEN ONE PEOPLE IS ENTITLED TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE. IT IS ABOUT WHEN LEGITIMATE POLITICAL AUTHORITY CAN BE THROWN OFF. THAT IS WHEN PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO REBEL. HOW DOES THAT ARGUMENT GO? WHEN ARE PEOPLE ENTITLED TO REBEL? IN ORDER TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE POLITICAL AUTHORITY COMES FROM. WE HAVE TO KNOW HOW IT IS ACQUIRED BEFORE WE CAN SAY WHEN IT CAN BE REJECTED. THAT IS WITH THE SELF-EVIDENT PRINCIPLES ARE ABOUT. WHERE DOES POLITICAL AUTHORITY COME FROM? ONE ANSWER WOULD BE FROM BIRTH. SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST BORN KINGS. THEY ARE BORN TO RULE. THAT IS A CLEAN THE BRITISH CROWN MIGHT MAKE. THE BRITISH CROWN SAYS, YOU CANNOT DECLARE INDEPENDENCE, KING GEORGE IS YOUR KING, HE WAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY BY GOD. THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS TO SAY -- AS THE BRITISH MONARCH DOES -- KING BY THE GRACE OF GOD. REBELLION AGAINST HIM WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIED. IT WOULD BE A SIN. THAT IS THE THEORY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS. IT IS A BIT OF A STRAWMAN IN 1776 BECAUSE THE ENGLISH MONARCHY IS NO LONGER CLAIMING FIND AUTHORITY. THE IDEA HAS BEEN ATTACKED BY THINKERS FROM MILTON TO THOMAS PAYNE IN "COMMON SENSE" BUT JEFFERSON THINKS HE NEEDS TO DEAL WITH IT. HE DOES WITH THIS PROPOSITION ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. NOBODY IS BORN TO RULE. THIS IS AMERICA, THERE ARE NO KINGS. THIS LOOKS LIKE -- TO MODERNIZE -- A BROAD MORAL PRINCIPLE. IT IS A COMPRESSED ARGUMENT OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. WE ARE GOING TO SEE THIS AGAIN WITH THE DECLARATION. TWO MODERNIZE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT AS STEEPED IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AS THE FOUNDERS WERE WE TEND TO THINK OF THESE AS BROAD MORAL PRINCIPLES. THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD THE TIME TIGHTLY COMPRESSED ARGUMENTS OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THERE ARE NO KINGS. THIS IS WHAT I AM GOING TO CALL JEFFERSON'S EQUALITY. THERE ARE NO KINGS BUT ARE THERE SLAVES? YES, OF COURSE. JEFFERSON'S EQUALITY TELLS YOU IN A LITERAL SENSE KINGS DO NOT EXIST. THERE IS NO SUCH PERSON AS A KING WHO IS ENTITLED BY BIRTH TO DEMAND YOUR OBEDIENCE. OF COURSE SLAVES DO EXIST. JEFFERSON OWNED SEVERAL HUNDRED. OTHER FOUNDERS DID AND BY THE STANDARDS OF THE AGE YOU ARE IF YOU FREED YOUR SLAVES WHEN YOU DIED. JEFFERSON DID NOT DO THAT. HE FREED A SMALL NUMBER ON HIS DEATH AND THEY WERE HIS CHILDREN. [LAUGHTER] BUT BACK JEFFERSON'S EQUALITY. IT IS NOT THE IDEA THERE ARE NO SLAVES. SLAVERY IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH JEFFERSON'S EQUALITY. THAT ONLY TELLS YOU THAT PEOPLE ARE BORN EQUAL. THEY ARE BORN EQUAL BUT DO NOT HAVE TO STAY THAT WAY. PEOPLE MIGHT ACQUIRE AUTHORITY OVER EACH OTHER. THEY MIGHT DO THIS LEGITIMATELY WHEN PEOPLE FORM A SOCIETY BY DIVIDING THEMSELVES INTO THE GOVERNORS AND GOVERNED. THE GOVERNED HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO OBEY. OR THEY MIGHT DO IT THROUGH FORCE. THEY MIGHT ENSLAVE EACH OTHER. BUT NOTHING IN THE IDEA OF BEING BORN EQUAL SAYS THAT CANNOT HAPPEN. IT DOES NOT EVEN SAY IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. THAT IS A SEPARATE ARGUMENT YOU HAVE TO HAVE. JEFFERSON AND THE DECLARATION REJECT THE IDEA THAT SOME PEOPLE CAN SAY TO OTHERS, BY YOUR BIRTH YOU ARE A SLAVE AND I AM ENTITLED, LEGITIMATELY, TO DEMAND OBEDIENCE. IT DOES NOT REJECT OR CONFLICT WITH THE IDEA THAT SOME PEOPLE CAN SAY, BY YOUR BIRTH YOU ARE INFERIOR AND IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO BE MY SLAVE. I CAN GIVE YOU CHRISTIANITY, CIVILIZATION. THAT WAS A COMMON JUSTIFICATION AT THE TIME AND IT FIT PRETTY WELL WITH JEFFERSON'S VIEWS. HIS VIEWS WERE COMPLICATED BUT HE DID BELIEVE BLACKS WERE INFERIOR, THAT SLAVES, IF FREED, CANNOT SURVIVE ON THEIR OWN OR ASSIMILATED INTO CULTURE AND WOULD POSE A THREAT TO WHITES. JEFFERSON'S EQUALITY IS VERY LIMITED. IT IS THE IDEA OF POLITICAL EQUALITY AS A STARTING POINT. POLITICAL QUALITY IN THE STATE OF NATURE. IT IS NOT SAYING PEOPLE WILL END UP EQUAL OR FREE AND NOT SAYING GOVERNMENTS SHOULD TRY TO MAKE THEM SO. IT IS JUST A THEORY, JUST A PRINCIPAL, ABOUT HOW PEOPLE CAN LEGITIMATELY BECOME SUBJECT TO AN OBLIGATION TO OBEY. IT IS NOT A MORAL PRINCIPLE ABOUT EQUAL TREATMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT. IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, AND ITS RELATION TO SLAVERY, THE PRINCIPLE THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL SAYS DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. TO KING GEORGE ASSERTING DIVINE RIGHT TO RULE, IT SAYS YOU'RE WRONG. THAT IS NOT HOW PEOPLE ARE CREATED. BUT TO A SLAVE WHO SAYS WHAT ABOUT MY EQUALITY? THE DECLARATION ANSWER IS THAT COMPLICATED. WE WOULD NEED A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THIS JUSTIFIED IN THE DECLARATION DOES NOT GIVE IT. THE DECLARATION IS NOT INTERESTED IN THAT QUESTION. EXACTLY THE SAME THING IS TRUE OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT PEOPLE HAVE INALIENABLE RIGHTS INCLUDING LIBERTY. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A COMPRESSED ARGUMENT OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AND IT IS RESPONDING TO A CLAIM THE BRITISH CROWN MIGHT MAKE. THAT IS THE CLAIM OF AN INSOLUBLE SOCIAL CONTRACT. THIS CLAIM WOULD BE YES,, PEOPLE START OUT EQUAL THEY START WITH NATURAL RIGHTS INCLUDING LIBERTY BUT WHEN THEY FORM A SOCIETY, THEY IRREVOCABLY SURRENDER THOSE TO THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY OF THOMAS HOBBES RATHER THAN JOHN LOCKE AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR TO PEOPLE AT THE TIME. IF YOU ACCEPT THAT THEORY, THE COLONISTS WOULD SAY YOU HAVE VIOLATED MY LIBERTY AND KING GEORGE WOULD RESPOND, YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN I AM VIOLATING LIBERTY BECAUSE YOU SURRENDERED YOUR LIBERTY FOREVER ALONG WITH ALL NATURAL RIGHTS IN EXCHANGE FOR MY PROTECTION. AGAIN, THE DECLARATION'S PRINCIPLES SAY, YOU ARE WRONG. THE COLONISTS DID NOT SURRENDER IRREVOCABLY. THEY COULD NOT HAVE BECAUSE THAT IS INALIENABLE. IT LAY NOBLE -- ELATED ELAINE INALIENABLE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT GIVE AWAY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE VIRGINIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, YOU GET A MORE EXPANDED STATEMENT OF THIS PRINCIPLE. IT SAYS PEOPLE HAVE INALIENABLE RIGHTS INCLUDING LIBERTY OF WHICH, BY NO COMPACT, CAN THAT DIVEST THEMSELVES OR POSTERITY. LIBERTY CANNOT BE GIVEN AWAY. NOW, YOU CAN IMAGINE A SLAVE SAYING SORT OF THE SAME THING. SAYING, YOU HAVE VIOLATED MY LIBERTY BUT THE ANSWER THE DECLARATION REGIFTED THAT IS, WELL, THAT'S COMPLICATED. SOMETIMES THEY ARE JUSTIFIED. WE LOCK UP CRIMINALS AND THERE IS NO PHILOSOPHICAL ERROR IN THAT. IS IT JUSTIFIED TO ENSLAVE PEOPLE? OF COURSE NOT BUT THE REASON IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IS NOT THAT LIBERTY IS INALIENABLE. IT'S THE EXERCISEING DOMINION OVER ANOTHER IS WRONG. ITNOBODY SAID -- AS KING GEORGE MIGHT HAVE -- THAT SLAVES VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER LIBERTY. THE PRINCIPLE THAT LIBERTY IS INALIENABLE IS WHEN THE COLONISTS CAN INVOKE AGAINST THE CROWN AGAINST AN INDISSOLUBLE SOCIAL CONTRACT WE FORM A SOCIETY AND LOSE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE IT. AGAIN, IT DOES NOT OFFER MUCH HELP FOR THE SLAVE. IN GET TO THE HEART OF THE DECLARATION. PEOPLE CREATE GOVERNMENTS TO SECURE INALIENABLE RIGHTS. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT THREATENS THOSE RIGHTS PEOPLE CAN ALTER OR ABOLISH THEIR GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE RIGHT OF REBELLION. THIS SAYS THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT THREATENS THE RIGHTS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT, YOU CAN CHANGE IT. THIS IS THE HEART OF THE DECLARATION NOT THE PRINCIPLES THAT WE FIND EARLIER ON. IF THE GOVERNMENT THREATENS YOUR RIGHTS, YOU CAN CHANGE IT. REBELLION AND WHEN IT IS JUSTIFIED IS WHAT THE DECLARATION IS ABOUT. IT IS A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. IT IS ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE COLONIES WHICH ARE ELLIPTICAL COMMUNITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE CROWN. ANOTHER POLITICAL COMMUNITY. THIS, YOU MIGHT THINK, HAS RELEVANCE TO THE SLIDES. AT THE COLONIAL GOVERNMENTS PROTECTING THE RIGHTS? OF COURSE NOT. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS ON ANOTHER PAGE. THEY DON'T CLAIM TO. THEY WERE NOT CREATED BY THE SLAVES. HERE IS ANOTHER FUNDAMENTAL POINT ABOUT THE DECLARATION. IT IS ALL ABOUT RELATIONS IN THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE GOVERNORS AND GOVERNED. LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY IS BASED ON THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. THE ARGUMENT OF THE DECLARATION IS ABOUT WHEN THAT CONSENT CAN BE WITHDRAWN. SLAVES NEVER CONSENTED. THEY ARE HELD IN BONDAGE BY FORCE. THEY ARE OUTSIDERS. THE SUPREME COURT WAS SAY -- WOULD SAY THERE PERPETUAL OUTSIDERS, THE DESCENDENTS OF SLAVES CAN NEVER BECOME CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. THEY CAN NEVER BE MEMBERS OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY. THE ARGUMENT THE DECLARATION IS MAKING ABOUT WHEN IT POLITICAL COMMUNITY CAN BE DISSOLVED, WHEN A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT TO BE ABOLISHED, HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE SITUATION OF SLAVES. WHAT IF I SAID SO FAR? THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DECLARATION ARE NOT BROAD MORAL PRINCIPLES THE WAY WE OFTEN THINK. THEY ARE NARROW POLITICAL PRINCIPLES. THEY'RE PRETTY TECHNICAL, COMPRESSED, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR TO PEOPLE AT THE TIME. IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK THE RECEPTION OF THE DECLARATION AT THE TIME, PEOPLE DID NOT THINK THE PREAMBLE WAS ANNOUNCING ANYTHING REVOLUTIONARY. THESE ARE NOT THE IDEALS WE NOW THINK OF AS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR IDENTITY. THEY ARE NOT OUR MODERN VALUES OF LIBERTY AND EQUALITY. THEY ARE NOT EVEN DIRECTLY IN CONFLICT WITH SLAVERY. SO, WHAT NEXT? WHAT ABOUT THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION? THIS IS AN FOUNDERS HALL PHILADELPHIA. IS THIS A STATEMENT OF OUR PRINCIPLES AS AMERICANS? OF THE VALUES WE HOLD DEAR? NO, IT'S NOT. THE IT IS NOT FOR TWO REASONS. SECOND, THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT OUR CONSTITUTION. THERE IS NO LINE FROM THE DECLARATION THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION TO US. WE ARE NOT THEHEIRS OF THE FOUNDING END REVOLUTION. THAT POINT IS FARTHER DOWN THE ROAD. THE MAIN THING I WANT TO FOCUS ON IS THE CONTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. WHAT I JUST TOLD YOU OF THE DECLARATION OF SLAVERY AS THAT, I'M NOT SURE ANYONE ELSE AGREES. WHAT I AM GOING TO TELL YOU NOW IS RELATIVELY WELL ACCEPTED. EVEN IF YOU SUPPOSE THE DECLARATION CONTAINS THESE BROAD MORAL PRINCIPLES, THEY REALLY DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION. THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION CONTAINS VERY FEW STRONG STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLES OR VALUES. WE TALK ABOUT IT AS IF IT DOES. WE THINK THAT THE FOUNDING CONSTITUTION GATHERS TOGETHER OUR AMERICAN IDEALS, THAT IT TELLS US WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AMERICAN. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS WRITTEN, THERE ARE NO UNDILUTED PRINCIPLES. IF THERE IS AN OVERARCHING THEME OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT'S COMPROMISE. THERE'S COMPROMISE BETWEEN BIG STATES AND SMALL STATES. THAT IS HOW WE END UP WITH TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS. ONE HAS SENATORS AND ONE HAS ONE BASED ON POPULATION. IT IS COMPROMISE BETWEEN FREE STATES AND SLAVE STATES. THAT IS MOST NOTABLY THE 3/5 COPPER MINES WHICH GIVES STATES -- 3/5 COMPROMISE. WHAT ABOUT THE VALUES OF LIBERTY AND EQUALITY? EQUALITY IS HARDLY IN THERE AT ALL. IT IS THERE MOSTLY AS A RIGHT OF STATE. STATES ARE GUARANTEED EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN THE SENATE. LIBERTY DOES A LITTLE BIT BETTER. THERE IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS. BUT LIKE ALL ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS, THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION ARE AVAILABLE ONLY AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE STATES CAN BASICALLY DO WHAT THEY WANT TO THEIR OWN CITIZENS. ANOTHER THING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION IN RELATION TO LIBERTY AND EQUALITY, I SAID THE DECLARATION IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH SLAVERY. IT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH SLAVERY. IT IS NEUTRAL ON THE TOPIC. THE ARGUMENT IT MAKES SIMPLY DOES NOT RELATE TO THE PRACTICE OF SLAVERY. BUT THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION IS PROSLAVERY. THERE IS THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CLAUSE WHICH SAYS A SLAVE ESCAPING TO ANOTHER STATE CANNOT THEREBY ACQUIRE FREEDOM BUT MUST BE RETURNED UPON DEMAND OF THE PERSON TO WHOM SERVICES DO. THIS STRIPS THE STATE OF SOME DEGREE OF SOVEREIGNTY IN ORDER TO PREVENT THEM FROM FREEING SLAVES. THERE IS ALSO A PROVISION THAT PROTECTS THE INTERNATIONAL SLAVE TRADE UNTIL 1808. MOST IMPORTANT, THERE IS THE 3/5 COMPROMISE. THIS ENHANCES THE POWER OF SLAVEHOLDING STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT GIVES THEM MORE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS, MORE VOTES IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. FOUR OF THE FIRST FIVE PRESIDENTS COME FROM THE SLAVE STATE OF VIRGINIA AND THOMAS JEFFERSON WOULD HAVE LOST THE ELECTION TO JOHN ADAMS OF MASSACHUSETTS IF NOT FOR THE 3/5 COMPROMISE. SO, WHAT HAVE I SAID? BEING AN AMERICAN NOWADAYS MEANS BEING COMMITTED TO CERTAIN VALUES. MOST NOTABLY THE VALUES OF LIBERTY AND EQUALITY. I MEAN THAT IN THE SENSE THAT THESE ARE ASPIRATIONS. WE THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE FREE, PEOPLE SHOULD BE EQUAL, PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO COMPLAIN IF THE GOVERNMENT INFRINGES ON THEIR LIBERTY OR TREATS THEM UNEQUALLY. BUT YOU DON'T ACTUALLY FIND THOSE VALUES BY LOOKING BACK TO THE DECLARATION AND THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION. THEY ARE NOT THERE. ONE PROBLEM WITH THE STANDARD STORY IS THAT IT IS IMPOSING ON THE PAST A SET OF VALUES THAT DID NOT REALLY EXIST. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK BACK TO THE DECLARATION AND CONSTITUTION AND TELL A STORY ABOUT AN AMERICAN IDENTITY THAT WAS BORN THEN AND ENDURE THROUGH THE YEARS, YOU CAN DO IT BUT IT IS NOT A HAPPY STORY. IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A CONTINUOUS THEME IN AMERICAN HISTORY, THE THEME IS PUTTING UNITY AHEAD OF JUSTICE. PUTTING UNITY AHEAD OF EQUALITY. THIS IS A STORY ABOUT THE SHADOW OF SLAVERY HANGING OVER THE NATION. IT IS WHAT I CALL THE DARKER STORY. THIS STORY STARTS WITH THE DECLARATION WHICH BRINGS TOGETHER A FREE STATES AND THE SLAVE STATES. AMERICA IS GOING TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM AS ONE. WE HAVE TO DO THAT, HAVE TO DO THAT TO ACHIEVE INDEPENDENCE BECAUSE THE STATES ACTING SEPARATELY CANNOT DEFEAT THE BRITISH. THIS IS THE MOST POWERFUL EMPIRE IN THE WORLD. IT MEANS THAT FREE STATES AND SLAVE STATES HAVE TO JOIN TOGETHER AND THAT MEANS THE DECLARATION IS NOT GOING TO SAY MUCH ABOUT SLAVERY. JEFFERSON'S FIRST DRAFT DOES SAY SOMETHING. FIRST, IT BLAMES KING GEORGE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY IN AMERICA. JEFFERSON DID THINK SLAVERY SHOULD NEVER HAVE COME TO AMERICA. THEN IT ALSO BLENDS KING GEORGE FOR INCITING SLAVE REBELLIONS. JEFFERSON THOUGHT SLAVES CAN'T BE FREED. THEY WOULD BE DANGEROUS. THE FINAL DRAFT TAKES UP THE ATTACK ON SLAVERY ITSELF BUT LEAVES IN THE COMPLAINT THAT KING GEORGE ENCOURAGE SLAVES TO REBEL. EVEN IF THE DECLARATION ANNOUNCES PRINCIPLES INCONSISTENT WITH SLAVERY, I SAID I DON'T THINK IT DOES, IT VERY DELIBERATELY DOES NOT CRITICIZE THE PRACTICE. YOU CAN SEE IT, IT'S IN THERE, IT GETS TAKEN OUT. EXCEPTING SLAVERY IS THE PRICE OF INDEPENDENCE. IT IS ALSO THE PRICE OF UNION. AFTER THE REVOLUTION, WE GET THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. THOSE ARE BASICALLY A TREATY AMONG INDEPENDENT STATES. THE PEOPLE WHO DRAFTED THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION REMEMBERED THE TYRANNY OF THE BRITISH. THEY SET OUT TO CREATE A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THAT IS TOO WEAK TO BECOME A TYRANT. THEY SUCCEED IN THAT. BUT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THEY CREATE IS ALSO TWO-WEEK TO GOVERN EFFECTIVELY. -- TOO WEAK TO GOVERN EFFECTIVELY. GOVERNMENT IS NEEDED. ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE TO GET EVERYBODY ON BOARD. WE HAVE TO GET THE FREE STATES AND SLAVE STATES TOGETHER. IF WE CANNOT GET ONE SINGLE, DOMINANT NATION, THE EUROPEAN POWERS THEY PICK UP THE ISOLATED STATES ONE BY ONE. FRANCE, SPAIN, ENGLAND WILL COME IN AND DISMEMBER THE UNITED STATES. THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION EXCEPT SLAVERY. IT PROTECTS IT IN THE WAYS I MENTIONED BEFORE. IT REWARDS SLAVE STATES WITH EXTRA POWER IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ONE OF THE THINGS I ALWAYS DO WITH MY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW STUDENTS IS I TAKE THE FIRST FEW WEEKS OF CLASS, WE READ THROUGH THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION CLAUSE BY CLAUSE, WE DISCUSSED JUST ABOUT EVERY SENTENCE GOING TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THEN I ASK THEM, WHAT DO YOU THINK? IS THIS A GLORY STATEMENT OF AMERICAN PRINCIPLES THAT HAS SURFACED WELL FOR OVER 200 YEARS? WARS AND IT -- OR IS IN AN AGREEMENT WITHOUT? [LAUGHTER] THEY LAUGH. PEOPLE ALWAYS LAUGH. THEY LEFT BECAUSE THEY ARE SURPRISED. THEY'VE BEEN TAUGHT THE STANDARD STORY ABOUT HOW WONDERFUL AND SUCCESSFUL THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN AND MOST OF THEM HAVE NOT HEARD THE PHRASE, COVENANT WITH DEATH AND AGREEMENT WITH HO HELL. OF THOSE TWO DESCRIPTIONS, I THINK GARRISON'S IS CLOSER. THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION IS A DEAL. YOU GET AN AMERICAN NATION BUT YOU MUST EXCEPT SLAVERY. THAT IS A BARGAIN WITH PEOPLE 

Kermit Roosevelt III ANNOUNCER: ANNOUNCER:EVIL. IT DOES NOT WORK OUT WELL. THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION IS PROSLAVERY BUT NOT AS PROSLAVERY AS IT COULD'VE BEEN. NOT LIKE THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION. IT DOES NOT ENTRENCH SLAVERY FOREVER. IT'S PROTECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SLAVE TRADE, EXPIRES IN 1808. SLAVERY GETS PUSHED DOWN THE ROAD. THAT ROAD LEADS WHERE? TO THE BATTLEFIELDS OF THE CIVIL WAR. THE CIVIL WAR HAPPENED BECAUSE THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION COMPROMISED AND DID NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY. I MEAN THAT FIRST IN A POLITICAL SENSE. THE CONSTITUTION COULD'VE TAKEN A POSITION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IT COULD HAVE SAID SLAVERY FOREVER. MAYBE THAT CONSTITUTION WOULD FOR GRATIFIED. OR IT COULD HAVE SAID SLAVERY WILL AND. NOT IMMEDIATELY, THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RATIFIED, BUT IN A NUMBER OF YEARS. THEY COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO SET SLAVERY ON A PATH TO EXTINCTION IN A WAY EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD. THE MOST OBVIOUS WAY TO DO THAT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN TO MODIFY THE 3/5 COMPROMISE SO THAT IT CHANGED AS THE YEARS WENT BY. THE SLAVE STATES WOULD INEVITABLY LOSE THEIR POWER OVER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN ACCEPTABLE BUT IT WAS EASIER TO SAY NOTHING. THAT IS WHAT THE FOUNDERS DID. THE CONSTITUTION IS STRUCTURED TO SUPPORT SLAVERY. THE SLAVE STATES CONTROLLED THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. UP UNTIL 1860 THERE ARE ONLY TWO PRESIDENTS -- THE ADAMS' -- WHO OPPOSE SLAVERY. THEN THINGS CHANGE. THE NORTH GROWS IN POPULATION. EVEN WITH THE 3/5 COMPROMISE THE FREE STATES START EXCEEDING THE SLAVE STATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THE NORTH IS INCREASINGLY CONTROLLING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESIDENTCY. THE SOUTH BOTH FOR JAMES BUCHANAN AND HE DEFEATS JOHN FREMONT. FREEMEN, FREE SOIL, FREE LAND, IT WAS A GOOD SLOGAN. BUT HE LOST. IN 1860, THE SOUTH VOTES FOR JOHN BRECKENRIDGE. HE DOES NOT WIN. ABRAHAM LINCOLN WINS. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, TO AN EXTENT, IS NOT THE SOUTHERN CHOICE. [LAUGHTER] IN 10 OF THE 11 STATES THAT ARE GOING TO SECEDE LINCOLN GETS ZERO POPULAR VOTES. NOT A SINGLE PERSON VOTES FOR ABRAHAM LINCOLN. WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE HE IS NOT ON THE BALLOT. NOBODY IS WILLING TO SUFFER THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE IN THE SOCIAL OPPROBRIUM THAT WOULD COME FROM PUTTING HIM ON THE BALLOT. IN THE 11TH VIRGINIA, HE GETS 1.1% OF THE POPULAR VOTE. THE SOUTH DOES NOT LIKE ABRAHAM LINCOLN. THE SOUTH SEAS THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FALLING INTO THE HANDS OF ANTISLAVERY FORCES. THEY FEAR THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO END SLAVERY. WHICH THE REPUBLICANS WERE TRYING TO DO. THEY WANTED TO DO IT. THEY DID NOT THINK IT COULD DO IT DIRECTLY BUT THEY HAD A STRATEGY. SEEING THAT COMING THE SOUTH SUCCEEDS. THE CIVIL WAR COMES ABOUT IN PART BECAUSE OF A POLITICAL FAILURE. YOU CAN ALSO SEE IT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A MORAL FAILURE, A CONSEQUENCE OF ACCEPTING SLAVERY. ABRAHAM LINCOLN UNDERSTOOD IT THAT WAY. HE SAID THE CIVIL WAR IS A JUDGMENT UPON US. THAT WILL LAST UNTIL EVERY DROP OF BLOOD WILL BE PAID BY ANOTHER DRAWN WITH THE SWORD. AFTER THE CIVIL WAR, WE FACE A GREAT TASK WHAT IS IT? YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE ACHIEVING TRUE EQUALITY AND FOR A WHILE, DURING RECONSTRUCTION, THAT DID SEEM TO BE THE NATION -- WHAT THE NATIONS DOING. THERE IS A BRIEF PERIOD WHERE WE ARE WORKING TOWARD RACIAL JUSTICE BUT THEN NATIONAL MISSION CHANGES. IT CHANGES BACK TO WHAT IT WAS WITH THE DECLARATION, WITH THE CONSTITUTION, AND WHAT IT WAS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CIVIL WAR. THAT STARTS IS A WAR FOR SLAVERY ON THE SIDE OF THE SOUTH BUT FOR UNION. THE NATIONAL MISSION CHANGES BACK TO UNITY. BRING THE NORTH AND SOUTH TOGETHER. HEAL THE WOUNDS OF THE CIVIL WAR. HOW DO WE DO THAT? IN THE SAME WITH THE DECLARATION AND CONSTITUTION DID BY SACRIFICING RACIAL JUSTICE. WITH THE COMPROMISE IN 1877, FEDERAL TROOPS WITHDRAW FROM THE SOUTH, THE INTEGRATED GOVERNMENT SET UP ARE OVERTHROWN BY FORCE, AND SOUTHERN WHITES TAKE BACK CONTROL. IT IS SEVEN WHITES LIKE THESE. THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE CALL THE REDEMPTION OF THE SOUTH. WHAT IT MEANS IS THE PROMISE OF RECONSTRUCTION GO UNFILLED FOR ABOUT 100 YEARS. THERE IS A DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE AMERICAN STORY THE FOCUS IS ON THIS. IT TAKES REDEMPTION AT THE FOUNDING MOMENT OF AMERICA. THERE IS A MOVIE ABOUT THE CIVIL WAR AND ITS AFTERMATH THE FOLLOWS TWO FAMILIES -- ONE FROM THE NORTH ONE FOR THE SOUTH -- THEY FIGHT ON OPPOSITE SIDES BUT THEY ARE BOTH AMERICANS. WHEN THE WAR IS OVER THE REUNION OF THE NATION SYMBOLIZED BY TWO MARRIAGES BETWEEN THESE FAMILIES, THE BONDS OF MATRIMONY KNITTING UP THE WINDS OF WAR. THE MOVIE IS "BIRTH OF A NATION." IT IS ABOUT THE BIRTH OF AN AMERICAN NATION. IT IS TELLING US THAT FOUND AMERICA BROKE APART INTO TWO LEGITIMATE SIDES. IT CAME BACK TOGETHER IN THE MOMENT OF REDEMPTION AND THAT WE CAN ALL GO FORWARD HAPPILY TOGETHER BECAUSE IN THE END, WE ARE ALL AMERICAN. IT WAS CONTROVERSIAL BUT VERY POPULAR IN ITS DAY. INCLUDING WITH PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON, THE FIRST SOUTHERN PRESIDENT TO HOLD SINCE THE CIVIL WAR. IF YOU LOOK AT IT TODAY, IT'S PRETTY HORRIFYING. THE PART OF THE MOVIE WERE TENSIONS ARE RISING, THINGS ARE GETTING WORSE, THAT IS RECONSTRUCTION. THERE IS A CLIMAX. THAT IS A BATTLE IN WHICH THE KU KLUX KLAN DEFEATS THE INTEGRATED MILITIA AND POLICE FORCE. THAT IS THE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA TOWN WHERE THE MOVIE IS SET. THEN THERE IS THE FALLING ACTION WHICH SHOWS YOU THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE ALL RIGHT. THAT OCCURS THE DAY AFTER THE BATTLE. THE TOWN HOLDS A NEW ELECTION, THE FREED SLAVES TURN OUT TO VOTE, THEY ARE MET BY ARMED KLANSMEN STANDING IN FRONT OF THE POLLING WITH AN TURN AROUND TO GO HOME. THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A RELIEF. THE RESOLUTION IS THE WEDDING. THIS REAFFIRMS THE NATION CAN GO FORWARD AS ONE, NOT SO MUCH BECAUSE WE ARE AMERICAN BUT BECAUSE WE ARE ALL WHITE. THIS IS THE DOMINANT STORY FOR A WHILE. THIS IS THE STANDARD STORY. FROM 1915 TO ABOUT 1980 WHEN SCHOLARS START TO REASSESS RECONSTRUCTION. THAT IS IN RESPONSE TO OTHER CHANGES THAT MAKE IT HARDER TO SEE REDEMPTION AS THE FOUNDING MOMENT. THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT COMES ALONG IN THE MID-20TH CENTURY, THE WARREN COURT, THIS IS OFTEN CALLED THE SECOND RECONSTRUCTION. CONGRESS ENACTS THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT PROHIBITING RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, THE SUPREME COURT ISSUES BROWN V BOARD OF EDUCATION WHICH BANDS SEGREGATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, LOVING AGAINST VIRGINIA. HERE ARE SOME HEADLINES. THE SECOND RECONSTRUCTION, LIKE THE FIRST, IS DIVISIVE. THE 1960'S, 1970'S, ARE TWO MULCHES. -- ARE TUMULTUOUS. THE AMERICA IS BEING TAKEN FROM THEM AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAMPAIGNS AGAINST THE WARREN COURT. RONALD REAGAN TALKS ABOUT WELFARE QUEENS, STRAPPING YOUNG BUCKS USING FOOD STAMPS. HE SAID THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT WAS ACCUMULATION OF SOUTH. HE KICKS OFF HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN PRAISING STATES RIGHTS WHERE CIVIL RIGHTS WORKERS WERE MURDERED. REAGAN'S PRESIDENCY IS NOTABLE BECAUSE IT BRINGS SO MANY PEOPLE TOGETHER. OBVIOUSLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE OVERSTATES THE SPIS. REAGAN WINS TWO CRUSHING VICTORIES. THE PATTERN REPEATS ITSELF. IT IS FADING I THINK AND IF YOU WANT TO TELL A STORY PROGRESS YOU COULD TELL IT IN THAT WAY. BUT IF YOU WANT TO LOOK BACK TO THE DECLARATION AND FOUNDING FOR A BASIC THEME OF THE AMERICAN STORY, IT IS NOT LIBERTY, EQUALITY, IT IS PURCHASING UNITY AT THE PRICE OF RACIAL JUSTICE. IF YOU LISTEN CLOSELY, YOU CAN STILL HEAR THAT THEY. MY MAIN POINT IS THAT IF YOU LOOK BACK WITH CLEAR EYES, THE STORY OF AMERICA IS NOT SO MUCH A BURST OF IDEALISM THAT CASTED LIGHT INTO THE PRESENT DAY AS A PRIMAL SIN. A BETRAYAL THAT ECHOES DOWN THE AGES. OUR STANDARD STORY TRIES TO PUT A HAPPY GLOSS ON THIS BUT IT IS NOT REALLY ACCURATE AND THE MORE ACCURATE IT GETS, THE CLOSER IT GETS TO THE BIRTH OF A NATION WHICH IS MUCH LESS HAPPY. I WANT TO EXPLORE WHY THIS IS SO. HOW DID THIS COME TO BE OUR STANDARD STORY? WISE IS THE ONE WE TELL OURSELVES? IT IS LARGELY BECAUSE OF THIS MAN. ABRAHAM LINCOLN PUTS THE DECLARATION FRONT AND CENTER. HE DID THIS REALLY CONSISTENTLY THROUGH HIS LIFE BUT MOST NOTABLY DURING THE CIVIL WAR. WHY DOES HE DO THIS? PART OF THE ANSWER IS NECESSITY. LINCOLN IS COME AT THE TIME OF THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS, FIGHTING SLAVERY. LIKE I SAID, THE CIVIL WAR DID NOT START AS A WAR AGAINST SLAVERY. LINCOLN FAMOUSLY SAID, IF I COULD PRESERVE THE UNION BY FREEING OTHER SLAVES, BY FREEING THEM OF THE SLAVES, I WOULD DO IT. BUT THE TIME OF THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS IT HAS BECOME A WAR FOR FREEDOM. WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION? THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC CASTS IT IN RELIGIOUS TERMS. AS CHRIST DIED TO MAKE THEM HOLY LET US DIE TO MAKE THEM FREE. RELIGION IS ON THE OTHER. IN THE SOUTH, PEOPLE ARE APPEALING TO RELIGION. WHAT CAN LINCOLN INVOKE THAT IS UNDENIABLE? NOT THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION. THAT DOES NOT PROTECT EQUALITY. IT PROTECTS SLAVERY. LINCOLN TURNS TO THE WORDS OF THE DECLARATION. EVEN THOUGH THEY DO NOT REALLY HAVE THE VALUES HE'S APPEALING TO EITHER. SECOND, BY HARKING BACK TO THE DECLARATION, LINCOLN IS MAKING A STRATEGIC MOVE. HE IS SAYING THE CIVIL WAR, LIKE THE REVOLUTION, IS A WAR FOR AMERICA. IT IS A WAR FOR THE IDEA OF AMERICA CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY AND DEDICATED TO THE PROPOSITION ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. I DON'T HAVE PART OF THIS ADDRESS, IT IS A WAR TO DETERMINE WHETHER A NATION SO CONCEIVED AND DEDICATED COULD LONG ENDURE. AT THE TIME OF THE CIVIL WAR PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE LOOKS BACK FONDLY ON THE DECLARATION. FOLLOWING THE REVOLUTION THERE WAS A PURGE AND THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED INDEPENDENCE WERE LARGELY DRIVEN FROM THE COUNTRY. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LEFT SUPPORT THE DECLARATION. THEY LOOK BACK FONDLY ON THE REVOLUTION AND IT LINCOLN IS TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT IN THE CIVIL WAR THE UNIT IS FIGHTING FOR THE DECLARATION. -- UNION IS FIGHTING FOR THE DECLARATION. IT IS A GOOD THING IF YOU CAN CONVINCE PEOPLE THE DECLARATION AND FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION ARE ON YOUR SIDE. A LETTER PEOPLE SUBSCRIBE TO THOSE DOCUMENTS. AFTER LINCOLN THIS PRACTICE CONTINUES. IN 1963, MARTIN LUTHER KING MIXES I HAVE A DREAM SPEECH. IT STARTS BY ECHOING THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS RHETORICALLY. IT IS GIVEN FROM THE STEPS OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL AND KING STARTS OUT BY SAYING "FIVE SCORE YEARS AGO." LINCOLN'S COUNTY BACK TO THE DECLARATION BUT KING IS COUNTING BACK TO THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. THEN HE GOES BACK FARTHER. HE TALKS ABOUT THE ARCHITECTS OF OUR REPUBLIC. THE PEOPLE WHO READ THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. THEY PROMISED, HE SAID, THAT ALL MEN WOULD BE GUARANTEED THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. WELL, BOTH LINCOLN AND KING ARE WRONG. I HAVE SAID ALREADY THE DECLARATION OF FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION DO NOT HAVE THE VALUES THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT THERE. BUT THE MISTAKE IS A LITTLE MORE SEVERE EVEN THAN THAT. THINK ABOUT IT. IN THE CIVIL WAR WHOSE SIDE IS THE DECLARATION ON? THE ANSWER IS ACTUALLY PRETTY CLEAR. IT IS ON THE SIDE OF THE REBELS, THE SOUTH. WHO MARCHED ON WASHINGTON? MARCHING IN THE NAME OF THE DECLARATION? THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT DID BUT BEFORE THEM THE REAL CHAMPIONS OF THE IDEALS OF THE DECLARATION ARE THESE GUYS. THE CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS WHO MARCHED ON WASHINGTON IN 1863. THE REAL HEIRS ARE THE SOUTHERN SECESSIONISTS. THIS IS SOMETHING ELSE YOU DO NOT HEAR THAT OFTEN BUT WITHIN THE PROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC COMMUNITY I THINK IT IS RELATIVELY WELL ACCEPTED. IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, IT IS ABUNDANT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECESSION LETTERS THE SOUTHERN STATES SENT TO CONGRESS, OVERWHELMINGLY THEY INVOKE THE DECLARATION. THEY WERE RIGHT TO. THE HEART OF THE DECLARATION IS NOT A MORAL PRINCIPLE LIKE LIBERTY OR EQUALITY, IT IS THE POLITICAL THEORY THAT PEOPLE FORM GOVERNMENTS TO PROTECT CERTAIN RIGHTS AND IF THE GOVERNMENT THREATENS THOSE THE SOUTHERN STATES JOINED THE REVOLUTION AND THEN JOINED THE UNION TO PROTECT RIGHTS THAT THEY VALUED. AND HIGH ON THAT LIST WAS THE RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES. THEY MIGHT HAVE FEARED THAT THE BRITISH WOULD TAKE THAT AWAY JUST BEFORE INDEPENDENCE, A DECISION AND INGRID SAYING SLAVERY CANNOT EXIST AND ENGLAND, THE ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT IS STARTING. IF SOUTHERN STATES WHEN THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO FEAR THAT BRITAIN WILL AND SLAVERY. WHEN THEY STARTED TO FEAR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD, THEY LEFT THE UNION IN THE SAME WAY THEY LEFT THE EMPIRE. THEY STARTED THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION. SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION -- THE CIVIL WAR -- THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST REVOLUTION AT THE SECOND BECAUSE THE REBELS WON THE FIRST WAR AND LOST THE SECOND. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SIMILARITIES BECAUSE THESE ARE BOTH WARS FOUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. UNDER THE POLITICAL THEORY THAT PEOPLE FORM GOVERNMENTS TO PROTECT RIGHTS AND KEN REVELL IF THE GOVERNMENT THREATENS THOSE RIGHTS. IN BOTH CASES, THE RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THE RIGHTS IN PEOPLE'S MINDS. THE DECLARATION IS ON THE SIDE OF THE SOUTH. WHAT ABOUT THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION? THIS IS A LITTLE HARDER TO SEE. I AGAIN, THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY THE SOUTH. WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN WHEN THE STATES FEAR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND TAKE UP ARMS TO FIGHT AGAINST IT? WHO IS SUPPOSED TO WIN THAT CONTEST? IN THE MINDS OF THE FOUNDERS, THE ANSWER IS CLEAR. THE FOUNDERS THINK A DISTANT DENTAL GOVERNMENT MIGHT BECOME A THREAT TO LIBERTY, IT MIGHT START TO OUR PRESS ITS CITIZENS. WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE STATES STAND UP TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF THEIR CITIZENS. THAT IS WHAT STATE MILITIAS DID FIGHTING OFF THE REDCOATS. THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR IS THE MODEL THAT IS BUILT INTO THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION. THAT IS WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ABOUT. THE WELL-REGULATED MILITIA IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THE SECURITY OF FREE STATES BY FIGHTING OFF THE FEDERAL ARMY. IF IT COMES TO THAT. ALONG COMES THE SECOND REVOLUTION, THE STATE DAN UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF THEIR CITIZENS, STATES ARE SUPPOSED TO WIN. ACCORDING TO THE VISION OF THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION, THE SOUTH IS SUPPOSED TO WIN THE CIVIL WAR. ABRAHAM LINCOLN DID A LOT OF REMARKABLE THINGS. BUT THE MOST REMARKABLE IS THIS MAGIC TRICK THAT HE MAKES PEOPLE THINK HE IS THE ONE FIGHTING FOR THE DECLARATION AND THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IN FACT HE IS AGAINST THEM. IF YOU DRAW A LINE FROM THE DECLARATION THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION, IT DOES NOT GO TO US. IT GOES TO THE BATTLE SOUTH AND IT STOPS THERE -- A CULTURALLY REBEL SOUTH, IT STOPS THERE. WE ARE THE HEIRS OF THE PEOPLE WHO REJECTED THE THEORY OF THE DECLARATION BY FORCE OF ARMS. THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO MAKE THIS POINT, BUT THE ONE I LIKE BEST IS AN ANALOGY TO A PLOT DEVICE YOU FIND A LOT IN SCIENCE FICTION MOVIES. YOU HAVE THE HERO, THE HERO IS SUPPOSED TO BE HUNTING DOWN SOME DEVIANT, SOMETHING THAT IS NOT HUMAN, A CLONE OR ALIEN AND LOOKS HUMAN BUT IT IS NOT. YOU SEE THIS IN BLADE RUNNER. THIS IS MAYBE A SPOILER. ANYWAY, THE HERO HUNTS THIS THING DOWN, KILLS IT, LOOKING AT THE BODY, AND REALIZES, THAT IS HUMAN. THEN HE REALIZES SOMETHING OUT. IF THAT IS THE HUMAN, WHO AM I? I AM THE ROBOT, I AM THE CLONE, I AM THE BAD GUY. THAT IS THE KIND OF REALIZATION THAT I WANT YOU ALL TO HAVE ABOUT AMERICA AND THE DECLARATION. WHAT HAPPENS IN THE CIVIL WAR? LINCOLN TELLS US, WE ARE FIGHTING SLAVERY, FIGHTING THE ENEMY OF THE DECLARATION. THAT IS WHAT WE HUNTED DOWN AND KILLED, THIS DEVIANT, UN-AMERICAN IDEA. BUT ACTUALLY, IT WAS THE DECLARATION ITSELF. THE BODY ON THE GROUND AT THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR IS THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. IT IS THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION. THEY ARE DEAD AND WE ARE THE ONES WHO KILL THEM. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS SEVERAL THINGS. FIRST, OUR AMERICAN IDENTITY DOES NOT COME FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. THE MORAL PRINCIPLES WE THINK OF ARE NOT THERE. JEFFERSON'S EQUALITY IS NOT OUR EQUALITY. SECOND, AMERICAN IDENTITY DOES NOT COME FROM THE CONSTITUTION. OUR VALUES ARE NOT THERE EITHER. NOT IN PHILADELPHIA IN 1776, NOT IN PHILADELPHIA IN 1787. PENNSYLVANIA, MAYBE. BUT GETTYSBURG, THE CIVIL WAR, RECONSTRUCTION. THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION ARE A RUPTURE IN AMERICAN HISTORY. THE REBELS WIN THE FIRST REVOLUTION. ACCORDING TO THE REGULATION -- THE RIGHT -- ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO WIN THE SECOND BUT THEY DON'T. IT IS THE AND OF THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION THAT WE GET AFTER THE CIVIL WAR AFTER BE CONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS IS A BREAK FROM THE FOUNDERS' DESIGN AND IT IS JUST AS BIG A BREAK AS THE BREAK CREATED BY INDEPENDENCE FROM THE BRITISH EMPIRE. THE FOUNDERS HAD A BASIC VISION THAT SAID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS DANGEROUS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A THREAT TO LIBERTY. STATES PROTECT LIBERTY, STATE MILITIAS WILL FIGHT OFF THE TYRANNICAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THINGS DID NOT TURN OUT THAT WAY BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ONE, BUT THEY ALSO DID NOT TURN OUT THAT WAY BECAUSE IT TURNED OUT TO THE TYRANTS. THE STATE SUPPRESSED PEOPLE. IT WAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT FOUGHT FOR LIBERTY. THE RIGHT CONSTRUCTION ARMAMENTS REFLECT THIS NEW DESK THE BE CONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS WILL FLECK TO THIS NEW REALITY -- THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS REFLECT THIS REALITY. THEY GIVE US LINCOLN'S A QUALITY, NOT JEFFERSON'S EQUALITY. IT IS WORTH NOTING NOTING THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS WERE FORCED ON THE SOUTH. WE UPEND THE FOUNDERS' UNDERSTANDING, WE CHANGE THE STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT, AND WE DO THIS NOT REALLY -- WE SAY THIS, BUT NOT REALLY THROUGH THE ORDINARY ARTICLE FIVE PROCESS, WE DO THIS BY DISSOLVING SOUTHERN LEGISLATURES, PUTTING THE SOUTH UNDER MILITARY CONTROL, AND NOT ALLOWING THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO RETURN TO CONGRESS UNTIL THEY RATIFY THESE AMENDMENT. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CIVIL WAR IS THE REBELS LOST, BUT THE REVOLUTIONARIES ONE. WHAT I MEAN IS AT THE BEGINNING, I SAID, BOTH SIDES ARE FIGHTING FOR THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUS QUO. THE SOUTH SAYS WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES, IF WE THINK YOU WILL TAKE THAT AWAY, WE CAN LEAVE. THE NORTH SAYS, YOU CANNOT LEAVE, WE ARE A UNION. BOTH SIDES ARE FIGHTING FOR THEIR STATUS QUO. BUT AT SOME POINT -- I WILL SAY MORE LATER -- THE VISION OF THE UNION CHANGES. THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR THAT UNION, THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM. AT THIS POINT, JEFFERSON DAVIS IS LEADING A REBELLION AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN IS LEADING A REVOLUTION. A REVOLUTION IS WHAT YOU GET WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS. THE RECONSTRUCTION CONSTITUTION IS DIFFERENT FROM THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION. AND IT IS THE ONE THAT WE LIVE UNDER. ANOTHER THING I DO WITH MY STUDENTS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE SEMESTER IS I ASK THEM TO LIST IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT CASES, THE ONES THAT DEFINE THE CONSTITUTION. TYPICALLY, THEY COME UP WITH MOSTLY THE SAME CASES. THEY SAY BROWN, LOVING, CASES ABOUT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. THEY SAY MIRANDA, GIDEON, CASES ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS. MAYBE THEY SAY ROE V. WADE, THE RIGHT TO ABORTION. MORE RECENTLY, HODGES, THE RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. ALL OF THOSE CASES HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON. NONE OF THEM COULD HAVE HAPPENED UNDER THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION. ALL OF THOSE CASES ARE PEOPLE ASSERTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST THE STATES, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WHICH IS SOMETHING THEY CAN DO ONLY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR, AFTER RECONSTRUCTION, AFTER THE 14TH AMENDMENT. WHAT ARE THE BATTLES THAT GAVE US THE NATION WE LIVE IN TODAY? IS IT BUNKER HILL? NO. IF YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION WE HAVE TODAY, IT IS GETTYSBURG. WHO ARE THE SOLDIERS WHO DIED FOR OUR RIGHTS? THE MINUTEMEN AND COLONIAL ARMY? NO. IF YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT THE RIGHTS WE ENJOY TODAY, THE RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THOSE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, IT IS THE UNION ARMY. THE BEST WAY TO PUT THIS, THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION WAS A FAILURE. IT HAS NOT SERVED US WELL FOR 200 YEARS. IT LASTED ABOUT 70 YEARS, IT FAILED CATACLYSMIC LEE, AND IT WAS SET ASIDE. WE GOT A BETTER CONSTITUTION. WE BECAME A DIFFERENT NATION. THE REVOLUTION, ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAYS, BROUGHT FORTH ON THIS CONTINENT A NEW NATION, BUT IT WAS NOT THIS ONE. IT WAS NOT OUR AMERICA. OUR AMERICA IS RECONSTRUCTION AMERICA AND THE WAR THAT GIVES BIRTH TO IT IS THE CIVIL WAR. WHY DON'T WE SAY THIS? WHY DON'T WE LOOK TO BE CONSTRUCTION AS THE SOURCE OF OUR AMERICAN VALUES? WHEN LINCOLN COULD NOT. RECONSTRUCTION WAS IN THE FUTURE FOR HIM AT A FUTURE HE WOULD NOT LIVE TO SEE. IT WAS THE NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM THAT HE PROPHECY IN THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS. IT DID NOT EXIST WHEN HE SPOKE, IT WAS COMING. WHAT ABOUT MY NEW THINKING? -- WHAT ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER KING? THERE IS SOMETHING ODD ABOUT THE I HAVE A DREAM SPEECH. KING TALKS ABOUT THE FOUNDERS AND DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THEY MADE A PROMISE, HE SAYS, THAT AMERICA IS DISHONORING. HE POINTS TO SEGREGATION, HE POINTS TO RACE-BASED DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE. LIVE UP TO YOUR PROMISE, HE SAYS. I HAVE A DREAM THAT WE WILL RISE UP AND LET OUT OF THE TRUE MEANING OF ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. WHAT IS OUGHT ABOUT THIS IS TWOFOLD. FIRST, SEGREGATION, DENYING BLACKS THE VOTE, THOSE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION. SLAVERY IS PROTECTED BY THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION. THESE THINGS ARE FINE IN 1789. BUT IN 1963, THERE IS SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH. THAT SOMETHING IS NOT A DISTANT ASPIRATION, NOT A GLEAM IN THOMAS JEFFERSON'S EYE. THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION CONSTITUTION. THE 14TH AND 15TH AMENDMENTS SAY STATES CANNOT DO THESE THINGS. THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT ABOUT RACIAL SEGREGATION IN 1953, IN 1957 THE PRESENT SENSE THE AIRPORT TO LITTLE ROCK TO ENFORCE ITS ORDERS. IT IS STRANGE THAT CAME -- THAT KING'S DREAM IS THAT THE NATION WILL LIVE UP TO THE WORDS THAT ALL MEN ARE CRITICAL, RATHER THAN LOOKING DOWN AND READING THE 14TH AMENDMENT, REDDENED MORE RECENTLY ADDED DIRECTLY ON POINT, LEADING THE 15TH AMENDMENT, WHICH SAYS NO RACIAL DISCRIMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE. THERE IS A PROMISSORY NOTE THAT THE NATION IS DISHONORING IN 1963, BUT THE NOTE IS NOT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, IT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS. MARTIN LUTHER KING KNEW THIS. THERE IS EVIDENCE, IF YOU LOOK AT HIS WRITINGS, YOU WILL FIND AN EARLY ONE THAT HE WROTE IN HIGH SCHOOL CALLED THE NEGRO AND OTHER CONSTITUTION AND WHICH HE PREFIGURES WHAT HE SAYS OF THE I HAD A DREAM SPEECH BUT TALKS ABOUT RECONSTRUCTION, NOT THE DECLARATION. HE SWITCHES AT SOME POINT. HE SWITCHES FOCUS OF HIS RHETORIC. WHY? AS I SUGGESTED, IT IS STRATEGIC. THE DECLARATION IS SOMETHING ALL AMERICANS SUBSCRIBE TO. THE CALL TO LIVE UP TO THE DECLARATION MEANS SOMETHING TO EVERYONE. THE CALL TO LEAVE UP TO -- TO LIVE UP TO THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS, NOT TOO MUCH. PARTICULARLYPARTICULARLY IN 1963. EVEN NOW, RECONSTRUCTION IS DIVISIVE AND YOU CAN SEE THIS BY ASKING YOURSELF, WHO WON THE CIVIL WAR? MOST PEOPLE WILL SAY THE NORTH. I THINK MAYBE THEY SEE THAT EVEN MORE CONSISTENTLY IF THEY ARE FROM THE SOUTH. BUT THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER BECAUSE THE NORTH WAS NOT FIGHTING IN THE CIVIL WAR. FROM ONE PERSPECTIVE, IT IS A WAR BETWEEN TWO NATIONS COME UP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CONFEDERATE STATES. THAT IS THE CONFEDERATE PERSPECTIVE. FROM THE OTHER PERSPECTIVE, IT IS A WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND TRAITORS. IN EITHER CASE, THE WINNER IS THE UNITED STATES. IT IS US. WE WANT THE CIVIL WAR. BUT WE DON'T SAY THAT AND WHY DON'T WE SAY THAT? BECAUSE LOOKING BACK, NOT EVERYONE FEELS AFFILIATED WITH THE WINNING SIDE. HERE IS A WAY TO THINK ABOUT THAT THAT I THINK MAKES THE POINT. YOU KNOW THE SLIDE, THAT IS OUR FLAG -- YOU KNOW THE FLAG, THAT IS OUR FLAG. THAT THAT IYOU KNOW THIS FLAG. MOST PEOPLE WOULD THINK, THAT IS OUR FLAG. THAT IS THE BETSY ROSS FLAG. YOU KNOW THIS FLAG. PROBABLY FEWER OF YOU WOULD SAY THAT IS OUR FLAG. SOME PEOPLE WOULD. EVEN IF YOU WOULD NOT SAY THAT, YOU KNOW THAT FLAG. BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS? DOES ANYONE SAY, THIS IS MY FLAG? NO. THIS IS THE FORT SUMTER FLAG. THIS IS THE UNION FLAG IN THE CIVIL WAR. I GOT A PUT ON A MUG TO BRING TO MY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS BUT I HAD TO CUSTOM DESIGN AT. -- CUSTOM DESIGNED IT. YOU CAN GET A 50 STAR FLAG ON A MUG EASILY. YOU CAN GET A BETSY WAS FLAG EASILY. YOU CAN GET A CONFEDERATE FLAG ON A MUG. BUT IF YOU WANT THE UNION CIVIL WAR FLAG, YOU HAVE TO SPECIAL ORDER IT. PEOPLE DO NOT IDENTIFY THAT STRONGLY WITH THE UNION SIDE IN THE CIVIL WAR. THAT IS TO EVEN MORE SO FOR RECONSTRUCTION. TO SAY THAT IS US, THAT IS WHERE WE CAME FROM, YES, IT IS DIVISIVE. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE DECLARATION, WHEN I FIRST STARTED THINKING ABOUT THIS, THAT SEEMED OBVIOUS, IT SEEMED UNAVOIDABLE, IT SEEMED UNOBJECTIONABLE. OF COURSE EVERYONE CAN RALLY BEHIND THE DECLARATION AND OF COURSE YOU CANNOT EXPECT THE SAME SUPPORT FOR RECONSTRUCTION. BUT ACTUALLY, I THINK NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS IS TRUE. WHEN WE TELL OURSELVES THIS STORY, WHEN WE LOCATE OUR IDEALS AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE INSTEAD OF RECONSTRUCTION, WE ARE NOT JUST USING A CONVENIENT FICTION, WE ARE DOING WHAT I SAID THE DARKER STORY OF AMERICA SHOWS, WHICH IS WE ARE PURCHASING UNITY AT THE PRICE OF RACIAL JUSTICE. CAN EVERYONE RALLY BEHIND THE DECLARATION AND FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION? CAN EVERYONE SAY THOMAS JEFFERSON STATED MY IDEALS? NOT THE REAL THAT THE REGION. NOT THE REAL FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION. NOT MAYBE THE THOMAS JEFFERSON WE HAVE COME TO KNOW THROUGH DETAILED HISTORICAL ANALYSIS AND GENETIC TESTING. [LAUGHTER] BLACK AMERICANS -- OR ANY AMERICAN WHO THINGS COMPROMISE IT WITH SLAVERY IS UNACCEPTABLE -- MIGHT FIND IT HARD TO VALUE ABOUT THAT. TO THINK OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AS WHAT CREATES THEIR AMERICAN IDENTITY. BLACK AMERICANS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROMISES OF THE DECLARATION. THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RIGHTS OF THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION. THE SUPREME COURT SAID EXACTLY THAT IN THE DRED SCOTT CASE. BLACKS ARE NOT INCLUDED, THEY CANNOT BE DESCENDENTS OF SLAVES CAN NEVER BE U.S. CITIZENS. THE SPARED OF -- THE SPIRIT OF '76 IS A THREE WHITE MEN WALKING TOGETHER. THIS IS PAINTED IN 1876, THE END OF RECONSTRUCTION. THE NATION DECIDES TO LOOK BACK TO INDEPENDENCE, FORGET THE UNPLEASANTNESS, MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER, LOOK BACK TO A MOMENT WHEN EVERYONE FELT UNIFIED. WHAT ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION? IT IS DIVISIVE. BUT WHO FEELS EXCLUDED? NOT BLACKS ANYMORE. THE 14TH AMENDMENT OVERRULED THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. THAT IS THE POINT OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. THERE CAN BE NO HEREDITARY OUTSIDERS. NO MATTER WHO YOUR PARENTS WERE, IF YOU ARE BORN HERE, YOU ARE ONE OF US. THAT IS INCLUSIVE. WHO FEELS EXCLUDED? IT IS PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFY WITH THE LOSING SIDE IN THE CIVIL WAR. PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFY WITH TRAITORS WHO MADE WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO PRESERVE A REGIME BUILT ON SLAVERY. THAT IS THE TRUTH. IT NO LONGER SEEMS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD AGREE TO LOCATE OUR AMERICAN IDENTITY AND THE DECLARATION INSTEAD OF RECONSTRUCTION. I THINK IF WE WILL EXCLUDE SOME PEOPLE, IF WE WILL CELEBRATE SOMETHING THAT MARGINALIZES THEM, IT IS PROBABLY BETTER TO MARGINALIZE THE TRAITORS. I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT RECONSTRUCTION AND SEE OURSELVES , WE SHOULD ASK WHO ONE OF THE CIVIL WAR AND ANSWER, WE DID. THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. WE SHOULD MAYBE HALF THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC AS OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM. WE SHOULD HAVE THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS INSTEAD OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AS OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENT. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THESE MEN ARE THE REAL HEROES OF OUR CONSTITUTION. AND THE MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, I THINK THE CASE FOR BLACK UNION SOLDIERS AS THE HEROES OF OUR CONSTITUTION IS PRETTY STRONG. WHY? THE CIVIL WAR STARTS AS A WAR FOR UNION. IT ENDS AS A WAR FOR FREEDOM. HOW DOES THAT SHIP OCCUR? NO ONE IS ENTIRELY SURE, BUT I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS BLACK MILITARY SERVICE, BECAUSE ONCE YOU HAVE BLACK UNION SOLDIERS FIGHTING FOR THEIR COUNTRY, MILITARY SERVICE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PATH TO FULL CITIZENSHIP GOING BACK TO THE ROMAN EMPIRE. IT BECAME OBVIOUS TO LAY DID COME OUT TO THE OTHER PEOPLE LEADING THE UNION, IF YOU HAVE BLACK UNION SOLDIERS, YOU CAN NO LONGER HAVE SLAVERY WHEN THE WAR ENDS BECAUSE BLACKS HAVE TO BE CITIZENS AND PARTICIPANTS IN THE AMERICAN SOCIETY GOING FORWARD. SO WHAT TURNS THE CIVIL WAR INTO THE WAR FOR FREEDOM? WHAT GIVES US THE PUSH THAT LEAD TO THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY? I THINK IT IS BLACK MILITARY SERVICE. SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? IT MEANS WE CAN TELL A DIFFERENT STORY ABOUT AMERICA. A STORY ABOUT GETTING BETTER, LIKE A STANDARD STORY IS, BUT IT DOES NOT LOOK BACK. IT IS NOT ABOUT GETTING CLOSER TO SOME MYTHICAL PAST. IT IS ABOUT GETTING BETTER BY CREATING A BETTER FUTURE. MAKING A NATION THAT IS MORE JUST. IT IS NOT A SUCCESS STORY. NOT YET, MAYBE NOT EVER. IT IS THE STORY OF AN UNFINISHED PROJECT. IT IS NOT A STORY OF CONTINUITY. IT IS A STORY OF RUPTURE WITH THE PATH. THE AMERICA BOARD IN 1776 IS FLAWED. IT IS FLAWED OF NECESSITY BECAUSE COMPROMISE IS REQUIRED TO WIN INDEPENDENCE FROM BRITAIN, TO WIN RATIFICATION BECAUSE THE DELUSION. IT IS FLAWED BY ITS EMBRACE OF SLAVERY. THEN WE GET BETTER. THE IMPROVEMENT COMES AT A TERRIBLE COST, THE CIVIL WAR. BUT THEY RECONSTRUCTION ARMAMENTS GIVE US A BETTER CONSTITUTION. NOT IMMEDIATELY. RECONSTRUCTION IS OPPOSED, BLUNTED, DRIVEN BACK. GENERATIONS LATER, THE SUPREME COURT AND CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT STARTED TO REDEEM THE PROMISE OF RECONSTRUCTION AND WE KEEP GOING. THERE IS OPPOSITION. THERE IS ALWAYS OPPOSITION AND THERE ARE MISTAKES AND SETBACKS. BUT WHAT MAKES US AMERICANS, OUR DEEPEST IDEAL, IS WE KEEP TRYING. AMERICA IS BORN IN AN ATTEMPT TO FIND A BETTER WAY, YOU ESCAPE THE OPPRESSIVE MONARCHIES OF EUROPE. WE DON'T GET IT RIGHT IT MEDIATE LEE BUT WE KEEP GOING. WE ARE LOOKING FOR AMERICA AT THE AMERICA WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS NOT SOMETHING GIVEN TO US BY FOUNDING FATHERS, IT IS SOMETHING WE MAKE. SOMETHING WE FIGHT IN OURSELVES. THE TRUE AMERICA IS NOT HANDED DOWN FROM THE PAST, BUT CREATED BY EACH GENERATION. CREATED A LITTLE BETTER. WHAT WE CAN GIVE THE FUTURE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET A LITTLE CLOSER THAN WE DID OURSELVES. THAT IS THE PROMISE THAT MAKES US AMERICA. THAT IS THE PROMISE WE MUST KEEP. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] SO NOW I THINK WE HAVE A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD? 

Questioner  THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR AN INTERESTING LECTURE. I HAVE ONE COMMENT AND ONE QUESTION. THE COMMENT IS THAT ACTUALLY, THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION WAS ONLY PASSED BECAUSE THE NORTH WAS LOSING TOO MANY BATTLES, SO THAT IS WHY. AFTER THE EMANCIPATOR PROCLAMATION, THAT IS HOW WE GOT BLACK UNION SOLDIERS. MY QUESTION IS THIS. IF THE 15TH AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS TO VOTE, WHY DO WE HAVE IN TODAY'S SOCIETY SO MANY ANTI-VOTING PROBLEMS? 

Kermit Roosevelt III THANKS FOR THE COMMENT. THE QUESTION IS ABOUT THE 15TH AMENDMENT. THE ANSWER THERE -- THE 15TH AMENDMENT IS PRETTY NARROWLY TARGETED. THE 15TH I'M EMMETT RELATES TO RACE DISCRIMINATION. FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION, WE NEEDED THE 19TH OF MAY MEANT -- ALL AMENDMENT. WHY DO WE HAVE SO MUCH VOTER SUPPRESSION NOWADAYS? THE 15TH AMENDMENT IS PART OF A CONSTRUCTION ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, IT IS A DEAD LETTER. BECAUSE THERE IS OVERT AND EXPLICIT REFUSAL TO ALLOW BLACKS TO VOTE IN A LOT OF PLACES IN THE COUNTRY, A LOT OF THE SOUTH, OTHER PLACES AS WELL, THERE ARE PROBLEMS. AND EVENTUALLY, THE NATION MOVES FORWARD A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, YOU CANNOT DO THIS SO EXPLICITLY , THEN, RATHER THAN LITERALLY DISCRIMINATORY RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO VOTE, YOU GET TESTS THAT ARE ADMINISTERED ON EQUALLY OR TESTS THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO PASS, MOST WHITES DON'T HAVE TO PASS BECAUSE THERE ARE GRANDFATHER CLAUSES, THIS IS THE ORIGIN OF THE PHRASE GRANDFATHERED IN, IF YOUR GRANDFATHER WAS ALLOWED TO VOTE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PASS THE TEST. IF YOUR GRANDFATHER WAS NOT A TO VOTE, YOU DO. WHO DOES THAT EFFECT? IT -- IT AFFECTS DESCENDENTS OF SLAVES. HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THAT? IT TURNS OUT TO BE VERY DIFFICULT. YOU CAN HAVE PEOPLE WHO SUE THE STATE DIRECTLY FOR DENYING THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE, BUT HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT A PARTICULAR TEST IS BEING ADMINISTERED IN A RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY WAY OR A RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY MOTIVE BEHIND IT? IT IS HARD. IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF AN INDIVIDUAL ELECTION, CAN YOU GET A CHALLENGE TO THE COURT AND A DECISION IN TIME TO REMEDY THIS PROBLEM? YOU CANNOT. THE NEXT ELECTION COMES AROUND AND THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING ELSE. EVENTUALLY, CONGRESS ENACTS THE VOTING BY FACT -- VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND ONE OF THE THINGS IT DOES IS IT SAYS CERTAIN JURISDICTIONS WITH A HISTORY OF RACE-BASED VOTER SUPPRESSION MUST GET APPROVAL ON THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THEY CAN MAKE CHANGES TO THEIR VOTING LAWS. THIS TURNS OUT TO BE IN NORMA'S THE EFFECTIVE DESK ENORMOUSLY EFFECTIVE BECAUSE NOW RATHER THAN TRYING TO BRING THESE INDIVIDUAL SUITS AGAINST STATES AND TRYING TO DO THINGS AT THE ELECTIONS ARE BEING HELD, YOU CAN STOP THE DISCO MENTOR I PRACTICES FROM GOING INTO EFFECT BEFORE HAND. THE VOTING BITES ACT WORKS WELL. IT WORKS SO WELL THAT OF THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES WE DON'T NEED IT ANYMORE. THE SUPREME COURT INVALIDATES THE PRECLEARANCE REQUIREMENT AND FOLLOWING THAT, A BUNCH OF STATES THAT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THAT IN ACT A BUNCH OF RESTRICTIONS ON VOTING, WHICH THEY PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAD THAT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DUDE IF THEY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO GET PRECLEARANCE AND IT TURNS OUT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO CHALLENGE THESE THINGS. THE ANSWER IS, THERE ARE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RESTRICT VOTING AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND SUPREME COURT OPPOSED THAT FOR A WHILE, AND THEY ARE NOT OPPOSING IT ANYMORE. 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 

Kermit Roosevelt III THOMAS JEFFERSON'S DRAFT OF THE CONSTITUTE -- THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE HAS A PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS IN PART, KING GEORGE HAS WAGED CRUEL UP OR HUMAN NATURE ITSELF, VIOLATING ITS MOST SACRED RIGHT OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PERSONS OF A DISTANT PEOPLE WHO NEVER OFFENDED HIM, CARRYING THEM INTO SLAVERY. I DON'T THINK IT WAS THOMAS JEFFERSON WHO WAS AGAINST SO EVERY, THOMAS JEFFERSON PUT A PARAGRAPH IN THE DECORATION -- IT WAS CONGRESS, OTHER MEMBERS.

Kermit Roosevelt III THAT IS IN THOMAS JEFFERSON'S DRAFT, I BELIEVE THE NOTES WE HAVE SAY THAT AT THE INSISTENCE OF REPRESENT US FROM SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA IT WAS TAKEN OUT. JEFFERSON DOES HAVE THIS PASSAGE IN HIS FIRST DRAFT COULD SIZING THE PRACTICE OF SLAVERY -- CRITICIZING THE PRACTICE OF SLAVERY. HE BLAMES KING GEORGE FOR INTRODUCING SLAVERY TO AMERICA. IT IS A LITTLE BIT STRANGE BECAUSE THE COLONISTS WERE NOT OBJECTING AT THE TIME THAT THIS INSTITUTION HAD BEEN FORCED ON THEM. THEY SEEMED TO BE BILLING PARTICIPATES.  

I DON'T THINK IT WAS CLEAN AND JEFFERSONS I, HE WROTE IT DOWN.

Kermit Roosevelt III RIGHT. WHEN I SAID THE PASSAGE A CLEAN AND JEFFERSONS I, I WAS TALKING ABOUT RACIAL SEGREGATION AND DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE, THE THINGS MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS OBJECTING TO. THE STANDARD STORY SAYS THE REALIZATION OF THE IDEALS OF THE DECLARATION SHOWS US THAT THOSE THINGS ARE IMPERMISSIBLE. ONCE YOU REALIZE THAT THE DECLARATION HAS THIS PASSAGE SIZING SLAVERY BUT TAKES IT OUT, LEAVES AND THE PASSAGE CRITICIZING KING GEORGE FOR INCITING SLAVE REBELLIONS AND WE MOVED TO THE FOUNDERS' CONSITITUTION WHICH PROTECTS SLAVERY, IT BECOMES HARDER TO SAY THOSE ALREADY PROMISSORY NOTES THAT THE NATION IS DISHONORING. WHY DIDN'T MARTIN LUTHER KING POINTED TO THE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT DO EXQUISITELY CONDEMNED THESE THINGS? THERE ARE PARTS THAT DO IT. THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS. THE QUESTION BECOMES MORE POINTED WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT AS A HIGH SCHOOL JUNIOR, HE WON A CONTEST WITH HIS ESSAY WHICH FOCUS IS ALL ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS AND TALKS ABOUT CONQUERING SOUTHERN ARMIES COME UP BUT BEING UNABLE TO CONQUER SOUTHERN HATE. WHY DID HE TALK THAT WAY AND THEN MOVE ONTO THE OPTIMISTIC, UNITY THEME OF I HAVE A DREAM? AS A MEDLEY HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE. LATER IN HIS LIFE, HE SEEMS TO HAVE CHANGED HIS MIND AGAIN. HE SEEMS TO HAVE LOST FAITH IN THE IDEA THAT APPEAL TO UNITY -- THAT APPEALS TO UNITY ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE. HE SET THE SUPERFICIAL OPTIMISM OF THE I HAVE A DREAM SPEECH NEEDED TO BE RECONSIDERED AND EXPRESSED GREATER FRUSTRATION WITH WHAT I HAVE TEST WITH WHAT I HAVE COME TO THINK IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE STANDARD STORY. IF YOU TELL YOURSELF ON AMERICAN IDEALS FROM THE BEGINNING ARE ANTISLAVERY, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PROBLEMS OF RACISM AND SAY, IS OVERT RACISM. IT IS SLAVERY, IT IS SEGREGATION, IT IS LYNCHING. ONCE WE ARE NOT DOING THAT ANYMORE, RACISM IS OVER. IT WAS AN ABERRATION. IT IS SUPERFICIAL. YOU CAN CUT THOSE PRACTICES OUT OF AMERICAN LIFE AND YOU HAVE SOLVED THE PROBLEM. WHAT KING SAID IS YOU NEED TO REALIZE RACISM IS A EMBEDDED IN AMERICAN LIFE, RACISM IS A DEEPER PART OF OUR IDENTITY. THAT IS TRUE. THE STANDARD STORY THAT TELLS US IT WAS AN ABERRATION ENCOURAGES A KIND OF COMPLACENCY AND UNWILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE WITH THE PERVASIVENESS OF RACISM. 

Questioner  I ONLY HAVE ABOUT 15 QUESTIONS. [LAUGHTER] FOR ME, THE BUNCH LIGHT OF YOUR STORY IS PROFOUND. UNIONS ORDERS ARE WHAT CREATED THIS COUNTRY. I AM A BIOLOGIST, NOT A LAWYER. WHEN I LOOK AT THE LAWS THAT THE LAWYERS, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS PASSED BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LOOK AT THE CURRENT FUTURE, I WANT YOUR OPINION OF THE CONSTITUTION GOING FORWARD. RIGHT NOW, THE CONSTITUTION LOOKS LIKE A FLOOD DOCUMENT AND IS BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF INDEPENDENCE, WHICH EXITS NOWHERE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE. FROM THE CURRENT VIRUS TO CLIMATE CHANGE TO BIOTERRORISM, WHATEVER THE THREATS ARE, OUR INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND OUR STATES RIGHTS ON A GLOBAL SCALE CANNOT DEAL WITH THESE PROBLEMS WITHOUT GETTING TO THE ROOT CAUSES AND IT IS MY VIEW -- MY STORY THAT I AM TELLING -- IS WHAT PART ABOUT THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND, THAT WHEN I LOOK AT EVERY RELIGION THAT COMES FROM THE GOLDEN RULE AND IT IS ABRAHAM LINCOLN WHO SAID, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS OUR GOLDEN APPLE AND OUR CONSTITUTION IS A SILVER FRAME AROUND IT, TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION THAT THOMAS PAYNE MIGHT SAY WOULD GIVE US OUR ECZEMA FREEDOM AND SECURITY, WE NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE WITH OUR FREEDOMS AND WE ARE NOT. THE STORY WE HAVE, OUR INDEPENDENCE AND INSISTENCE ON INDEPENDENCE, OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT CANNOT PROTECT US AGAINST TERRORISM. THE PRIVACY CANNOT BE DONE. THE CONSTITUTION MOVING FORWARD BASED ON THESE FLAWED CONCEPTS THAT DO NOT FIT WITH REALITY, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW? 

Kermit Roosevelt III I THINK THE CONSTITUTION IS FLAWED. THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT I WOULD CHANGE IF I COULD. FIXED TERM FOR THE PRESENT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, IT SHOULD BE EASIER TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT WHO LOST THE CONFIDENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. [APPLAUSE] I AM NOT A BIG FAN OF EQUAL STATE SUFFRAGE IN THE SENATE. THAT WAS DESIGNED FOR A DIFFERENT WORLD DEMOGRAPHICALLY. IT IS GOING TO BE THE CASE, IT IS PROJECTED WITHIN A FEW DECADES, THAT 80% OF THE POPULATION WILL LIVE IN 18 STATES. THERE WILL BE DRAMATIC DISTORTION THROUGH THE SENATE. NOT A HUGE FAN OF THAT. PARTICULARLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS A BAD IDEA. [APPLAUSE] CONCEIVABLY, WE COULD GET AROUND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WITHOUT MANY THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IF EACH STATE -- IF ENOUGH STATE TO CONSTITUTE A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AGREED TO AWARD THEIR ELECTORS TO THE WINNER OF THE POPULAR VOTE, BABY COULD GET TO A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE WITHOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THERE IS AN INTERESTING CONTACT WHERE STATES ARE PLEDGING TO DO THIS. UNFORTUNATELY, PEOPLE THINK -- AND I THINK YOU ARE MISTAKEN, BUT PEOPLE THINK THIS WOULD HAVE PARTISAN EFFECTS. ANYTHING THAT IS GOING TO HAVE PARTISAN EFFECTS, YOU PROBABLY CANNOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO ACHIEVE. BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT TO DO. THE PARTY SYSTEM IS THE OTHER REAL PROBLEM. THE PARTY SYSTEM INTERACTS WITH OUR CONSTITUTION IN AN UNFORTUNATE WAY. THE FRAMERS DID NOT ANTICIPATE THE PARTY SYSTEM. THEY THOUGHT THAT MEMBERS OF ONE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WOULD NECESSARILY SPILL OF LOYALTY TO THAT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND THE MEMBERS OF THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AS RIVALS. A NUMBER OF CONGRESS LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT AND THANKS, THERE IS A VITAL FOR THE AFFECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND I SHOULD TRY TO GOVERN WISELY SO PEOPLE WILL LIKELY MORE. DOES NOT TURN OUT THAT WAY WHEN YOU BRING THE PARTY SYSTEM INTO THE PICTURE BECAUSE NOW, IF THE MATTER OF CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT ARE THE SAME PARTY, THE NUMBER OF CONGRESS LOOKED AT THE PRESIDENT AND THINGS, THERE IS MY CAPTAIN. IF THEY ARE FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES, THE MATTER OF CONGRESS SAYS THEY ARE THE CAPTAIN OF THE OTHER TEAM. RATHER THAN CHECKS AND BALANCES BASED ON DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS OF THE PUBLIC GOOD AND INDEPENDENT JUDGMENTS ABOUT WISE POLICY, YOU GET EITHER SINGLE PARTY COMPLIANCE AND AN ABSENCE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES OR YOU GET THIS PARTISAN INFIGHTING. IN EITHER CASE, IT DOES NOT WORK OUT WELL. AND I WOULD SAY -- THE POINT I THINK YOU WERE SUGGESTING -- THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND WE SHOULD FEEL RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR GOVERNMENT IS ALSO A VERY IMPORTANT IDEA. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN LEAVING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WASN'T SUPPOSEDLY ASKED BY SOME WOMAN, WHAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT HAD GIVEN US? STAR FRANKLIN FAMOUSLY SUPPOSEDLY RESPONDED, A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT. THAT IS SOMETHING I THINK WE NEED TO BEAR IN MIND. 

Questioner  IF I CAN ASK A QUESTION, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH A LOT OF THE POINTS YOU MADE, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE COMPETITION BEING FLAWED AND MORE OF WHAT WE ARE NOW COMING OUT OF RECONSTRUCTION. BUT THE CONSTITUTION DID HAVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS, WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY. DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND ALL THAT STUFF. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOME OF OUR PERSONALITY, SOME OF THE POSITIVE THINGS THAT WHO WE ARE CAN BE TRACED BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION. I UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THOSE FREEDOMS DID NOT COME THROUGH UNTIL THE 14TH AMENDMENT APPLY THEM TO THE STATES, BUT THEY WERE AN INTRICATE PART OF WHO WE WERE AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS PASSED

Kermit Roosevelt III IT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION PAIRED ON ONE HAND, YES. I AGREE. THERE ARE THESE AMENDMENTS THAT PLACE LIMITS ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, PROTECT IMPORTANT VALUES. IT IS ALSO AN INTERESTING FACT THAT ONE COME THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD IN THE SAME WAY IT IS TODAY UNTIL AFTER IT STARTED BEING APPLIED AGAINST THE STATES THROUGH THE 14TH AMENDMENT. IF YOU LOOK FOR EARLY USES OF THE PHRASE THE BILL OF RIGHTS, YOU DON'T GET ANYONE CALLING THE FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS THE BILL OF RIGHTS UNTIL AFTER RECONSTRUCTION. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONTENT OF THOSE RIGHTS, IT IS DIFFERENT. THE BILL OF RIGHTS NOW HAS ALL THESE REALLY IMPORTANT RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL EFFECTS ON THE WAY GOVERNMENT CONDUCT ITSELF. IT DID NOT REALLY DO THAT UNTIL THOSE LIGHTS STARTED BEING APPLIED AGAINST THE STATES. PART OF THAT MAYBE HAS SOMETHING TO DO AND WHICH -- WITH HOW THE STATES ARE DOING MORE OPPRESSIVE THINGS AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY IS LESS INTERESTED IN CHECKING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. BUT ALSO A BUNCH OF THESE BITES WERE UNDERSTOOD DIFFERENTLY. ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS THAT IT IT IT INITIAL VERSION -- AND ITS INITIAL VERSION, IS NOT AS FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AS PEOPLE MIGHT THINK. A LOT IS FOCUSED ON EMPOWERING THE STATES BECAUSE THE FOUNDERS THINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A THREAT TO LIBERTY AND TRUST THE STATES. THEY THINK THE STATES WILL PROTECT LIBERTY. OR AT LEAST THEY DON'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH STATE PRACTICES. IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE YES TALISMAN CLAUSE THAT IS MAYBE THE MOST VIVID EXAMPLE, THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE SAYS CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN SL EVENT OF RELIGION, AND NOWADAYS THAT MEANS THERE CAN BE NO OFFICIAL RELIGION. NO OFFICIAL FEDERAL RELIGION, ALSO NO OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION. THE ASTONISHMENT CLAUSE GETS INVOKED BY STATES PUT UP RELIGIOUS DISPLAYS AND CROSSES IN THEIR COURT OR TRY TO PUT 10 COMMANDMENTS IN THE SCHOOLS. WE THINK OF THIS AS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT NOT TELLING YOU WHAT THE OFFICIAL RELIGION IS. BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT THIS BEFORE THE 14TH AMENDMENT AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING, WHY DID THEY SAY CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ESTABLISHING -- EFFECTING A ASSESSMENT OF RELIGION RATHER THAN JUST SAYING THERE IS NO ICE TALISMAN UP RELATED? THEY WERE TRYING TO DO TWO THINGS. THEY WERE TRYING TO PREVENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL RELIGION, BUT THEY WERE ALSO TRYING TO PROTECT STATE ESTABLISHMENTS. AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING, A POINT OF STATES HAD OFFICIAL RELIGIONS. THE POINT OF THE ASTONISHMENT CLAUSE WAS CONGRESS CANNOT DISESTABLISH THOSE. THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE FOR THE MOST VIVID EXAMPLE BUT THERE ARE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS THAT SORT OF CHANGED THEIR CONTENT AND CHANGED THEIR MEANING WHEN THEY GET REFRACTED THROUGH THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND THEY BECOME MORE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LESS WHAT THEY STARTED OUT AS, WHICH IS PROTECTION FOR STATE AUTHORITY. .

Questioner YOU ARE VERY ELOQUENT ON THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND COMPROMISES WITH SLAVERY AS A MEANS OF CREATING A UNION THAT INVOLVES SLAVE STATES. ISN'T IT TRUE THE RHETORIC THAT IS IN THE PREAMBLE WAS INTERPRETED BY MANY CONTEMPORARIES AS CONDEMNING SLAVERY AND BEING INCONSISTENT WITH SLAVERY AND EVEN MANY OF THE SOUTHERN SLAVEHOLDERS WHO BENEFITED IT FELT IT WAS AN EVIL THAT WOULD GO INTO EXTINCTION, REMOTE AGGRESSIVE DEFENDERS OF SLAVERY, BEING A MORAL GOOD CAME LATER? 

Kermit Roosevelt III SO HOW WAS THE DECORATION OF INDEPENDENCE UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME? INTERESTING QUESTION. THE WAY IT LOOKS TO ME -- MAYBE THE BEST SOURCE ON THIS IS POLLY MAYOR, SHE HAS DONE A LOT OF HISTORICAL ANALYSIS, MORE THAN I HAVE WITH ORIGINAL SOURCES AND I DEPEND TO A FAIR AMOUNT ON HER RESEARCH -- BUT IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS RECEIVED AT THE TIME IT IS PROMULGATED, BOTH PEOPLE SEEM TO UNDERSTAND ALL MEN ARE TREATED EQUAL AND LIBERTY IS INALIENABLE IN THE WAYS I HAVE DESCRIBED IT. THERE IS SOME SARCASTIC COMMENTARY AMONG THE BRITISH ABOUT HOW IRONIC IT IS THAT THE SLAVE DRIVERS ARE YELPING ABOUT LIBERTY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IS REALLY A SERIOUS ENGAGEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE DECLARATION. WHEN THE DECLARATION IS CELEBRATED, WHICH IS -- WHICH IT IS, IT TENDS TO BE CELEBRATED NOT AS A SORT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES ABOUT LIBERTY, BUT AS OUR INDEPENDENCE. THIS CHANGES BASICALLY AROUND 1830, WHEN THE CONCEPT OF SLAVERY IS AND HAS A 5 -- THE CONFLICT OVER SLAVERY IS INTENSIFYING AND ABOLITIONIST ARE LOOKING FOR RHETORICAL RESOURCES. HOW CAN BE EFFECTIVELY FIGHT AGAINST SLAVERY? IS EFFECTIVE TO SITE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR AMERICAN VALUES THAT WERE THERE FROM THE BEGINNING. THEY SAY THAT AND I THINK THEY BELIEVE IT. ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID THIS CONSISTENTLY, I THINK HE BELIEVED IT. I ALSO THINK IT IS A MISINTERPRETATION. IF YOU READ THE DECLARATION AND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN, WOULD WE EXPECT THOMAS JEFFERSON TO WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT HOW OUTSIDERS, PEOPLE ARE NOT PART OF A POLITICAL COMMUNITY, SHOULD BE TREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT THEY CANNOT BE ENSLAVED? THAT SEEMS A STRANGE THING FOR HIM TO DO BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRACTICE OF EVERY GOVERNMENT THAT HAD EVER EXISTED. AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT HE IS TRYING TO MAKE, WHICH IS ABOUT WHEN LEGITIMATE POLITICAL AUTHORITY AND BE REJECTED. JEFFERSON HIMSELF SAID HE WAS NOT TRYING TO BITE ANYTHING NOVEL, HE WAS TRYING TO PRODUCE A BOILERPLATE ENLIGHTENMENT SOCIAL CANTON TRACT, POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY ANALYSIS OF WHERE I THOUGHT HE COMES FROM AND WHERE IT CAN BE REJECTED. AT A PARTICULAR MOMENT, HEATED TO DISTINCT BETWEEN DIFFERENT STRANDS OF CONTRACT THEORIES, HE HAD TO GO WITH LOCKE AND IT DOES THAT IN A PRECISE WAY. BUT THE PART OF THE DECLARATION THAT PEOPLE CONSIDERED IMPORTANT WAS NOT THE PREAMBLE. NOT UNTIL ABOUT 1830.  

SORRY. [APPLAUSE]

Disclaimer and Credits  [CAPTIONS COPYRIGHT NATIONAL CABLE SATELLITE CORP. 2020] [CAPTIONING PERFORMED BY THE NATIONAL CAPTIONING INSTITUTE, WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS CAPTION CONTENT AND ACCURACY. VISIT NCICAP.ORG]