hello and welcome to your

national archives. my name is rodney slater. the national archives board chair and i am honored again to welcome you to your archives. we have the audience this evening. ambassador jim blanchard and his wife janet. ambassador blanchard is the past chair of, the foundation board. and so we're very, very to see him. the national archives foundation is nonprofit partner of the national archives. we work to generate for the

national archives mission to, provide public access to the agency's vast holdings. as part of this effort, the archives foundation is proud to assist the national archives in its national exhibition and public programs. much like tonight's program, this important conversation as well as the national archives, national, civic interactive programs that engage educators and students and the general public to learn about our past and to illuminate the future through. their participation in our republic. we have a wonderful planned for you this evening. celebrating ten years of the david rubenstein fine records of

rights gallery david rubenstein is a man who almost no introduction. he is an lawyer, businessman and of course a philanthropist and recently a major league baseball owner. a former governmental official. he is the co-founder and the coach chair of the public equity firm the carlyle group, a global private equity investment company based in washington, d.c., but perhaps more important is the impact of the support that david has offered that has been demonstrated over the years to civic and cultural institutions and museums.

the national archives. he calls it patriotic for. we think david and rubenstein for, his support his support of national archives and the records of rights exhibit this effort has welcomed nearly. 8 million visitors to explore the national archives records. the documenting the ongoing struggle of americans define to, attain and to protect their. the interactive exhibit helps to illustrate how we as citizens have worked to realize the idea of freedom enshrined in our nation's founding documents and how we have to continue to debate the issues. issues such as citizenship, free speech, voting rights and equal

opportunity. anchored by his loan of the. 1297 magna carta, which serves to reinforce the precedent for the concept of freedom under law. this gallery for the last ten years has been a catalyst to engage americans of all ages with progress, farming and educational initiatives around our collective, our individual rights. since the opening of david m rubenstein gallery. records of rights exhibit, the national archives. the national archives foundation have hosted. 252 rights related programs in washington, d.c. and online with many more programs as presented by presidential libraries nationwide. not to mention the impact gallery has had on archives such

as the young program, which has reached over 34,000 children and students. the record of rights talk, which is engaged more than a million page views and has visited by and has been visited by more. than 350,000 individuals from nearly. 200 countries around the world all seeking gain a better understanding about how you might define and and protect the rights that we hold dear. ducks teach doors the rights in landing page, which has created rights activities to reach a variety of grade levels on topics from african-american rights to native american rights

to women's rights. and this site has received a collective. of 686,000 page views. so you can see this investment by david m rubenstein has tremendous. it is one for it is a commitment and a contribution for which we are most and most appreciative through david's generosity. millions of people across, the country and around the world have been able to explore more complete story of history. and as notes, the good and the bad with the recognition that there is nothing wrong with america that can't be cured by what is right with america. ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to introduce to you david m rubenstein.

thank you. thank you all much. all right, so let me acknowledge the presence of our former chief archivist, david ferriero. david, thank you very much for returning. our earlier chair, jim blanchard. thank you very much. and all of you who here who care about these issues. let me try to make two points briefly. first, why do we have an archives anyway? why do we really need preserve all these documents at the moment? because of digitization and we can digitize everything. so why do we need this big building and other buildings to keep all these documents? just put everything on a little computer and you know it. we don't anymore. well, maybe at some point the

human brain will be the same such that everything digitized the same machine. in reality. but the truth is the human brain has fortunately evolved to the point where when you a historic document it's the same thing as seeing it, a digitization of it, so that when you go to see, say, the magna carta or another document here, when you know you're going to see the original you're more likely than not going prepare a little bit about it and might read about it. so maybe you'll get a little educated about it when you come. you're going to have a curator you about it and when you leave because you've seen the actual document, you're probably going to be more intrigued about what you saw and you're more likely to read about later. so it's likely that you're going learn a lot more by seeing the original document than just by seeing a digitized version. now, digitization is important, sure, but we need to preserve the original documents as well because by preserving the original documents, we're more likely to educate people and get them excited to see something.

when schoolchildren come here and they see the magna carta, the bill of rights, they're more likely to get excited about it, learn something. and we certainly can use more civic education among our young people. it's a very sad situation now. we don't have as much civic education we should. so i really want to thank archives for preserving this stock these documents. and for david pushing this through. i remember we talked it for quite some time and david was very persuasive. so i would say i'm very pleased with it and i'm pleased that people have a chance to come here and see the original that are preserved here. obviously, the the declaration of independence the original bill of rights and the constitution. a second point i'd like to convey is this. when you think about the bill, the of rights and think about the rights that people come here to talk about and read about, it is amazing how most human history did not have these kinds of rights. so all of us here share more or

less dna. to some extent. we're all -- sapiens with maybe 2% neanderthal blood in there. but 98% of our dna -- sapiens. and how sapiens came out of caves, more or less about 400,000 years ago. and so for most, that 400,000 years, there were no such things as human rights or rights for women rights for people that lived different look different life. and it is amazing that we've gotten to this point. we're now maybe only 50 years away from when the real serious effort was made in the united states to have have everybody be treated equally. so think about it. the original constitution obviously allowed didn't permit women to vote. and among other things, the bill of rights called as great as document as it was, did not do anything relating to slavery, didn't actually have anything for women to have the right to vote, among other challenges with the document and amazing

that as advance we are in civilization today, we think we're advanced. we still don't. a perfect situation where everybody is treated equally and everybody has the same rights under under law and i'm not sure why that is. it is a funny that the human brain is, an incredible thing that can come up with a picasso, a shakespeare play, a beethoven concert or a symphony and. that incredible creativity and brilliance has not yet translated into form that the human brain has. and that flaw is that if you look differently than me, if you are a different gender than me. your skin color is different than me, your sexual preference is different than we treat you differently. and it's still the case in most of the world that that's that's unfortunately the reality. so we've made progress. the united states in the last 50 years or so, maybe beginning and the latter part of the part of the last but made some progress in this century. but really when you think about it is how for most of organized

history, humans were not given basic rights. the rights in the magna carta, for example, were really only to the. it wasn't to everybody. later. it was supposed to be for other people who property and who were men. even in the united states, our declaration of independence did not do anything for women, didn't do anything for slaves. and same was true of the constitution. and i think that's about the human flaw that is it the brain that just says, if you look differently than me, you think differently than me, you talk differently to me, or you have a sexual preference different than mine. i'm going to treat you differently. i wish that one flaw in the human brain could be someday if operated so that everybody could be the same. and everybody can have the kind of rights that everybody should have. and everybody can truly be treated equal. we haven't reached that point yet, but i hope can. so one final point is that one man wrote a document and we're going to celebrate the. 250th anniversary of that in a

few years. and that was jefferson. he was 33 years old. given the assignment, write the statement about why we were going to break away from england. and like most humans, he had more time that he probably needed for it. so he put it off to the end, had about 14 days and the last two days he finally got around to it and he wrote three parts to it. one was the preamble, which nobody paid attention to really. the second was the sins of king, and everything under the sun was blamed on king george, maybe unfairly. and the last was what we're doing about it away. and the document got a lot of attention, as it should. and now it's seen as the as the birth certificate of the united states. what a sense in the preamble, which didn't get that much attention at the time, became the most famous sentence in the english language. we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed their creator with certain unalienable rights. among these are life, liberty and the of happiness. and think about it.

the man who wrote that some slaves with him, he owned several hundred during his lifetime. and he didn't say. all men and women are created equal, he said. all men created equal. and that's because in those days, thomas jefferson is brilliant. he was recognized. you couldn't eliminate slavery. you didn't think politically you could. and the idea women could be treated equal was never in his mind. so that sentence, though, is so famous, because even though it's been reinterpreted to mean all people have rights and equal opportunities, and therefore been gone, it's gone around the world as the embodiment of what humanity should be about. and it's really the creed of our country. we still have a long way to go to live up it, so i hope all of you will from the conversation we're going to have later. think about how far we've come and how far we still have to go to. sure, everybody is given equal in this country and all people are treated equally. thank you.

another round of applause for. david, please. and to be sure. some ways to go, but not as far because of your leadership and your support. now. i have the honor. the honor. introducing our panelists. tonight's program. these individuals will how rights are defined and how they have been defined over time. in our participatory republic, moderating the panel is dr. colleen shogan. dr. shogun is the 11th archivist of the united states. having followed david and she is the first woman appointed to head agency.

by the way, she and her team have completed a wonderful effort over the last few days, bringing up to date all the military record that were backlogged when she came on board and doing just a wonderful job. and so we commend her and the team for that. dr. shogun recognized as a political with expertise in the american presidency. political rhetoric, women and politics and congress. she was the senior vice president and director of the david m rubenstein center at the white house historical association. other panelists julianna richards, the founder and president of the history makers, the largest to record african-american experience, is

committed to preserving developing and providing easy access to thousands of african-american video oral histories. she currently sits on the honors council of the lawyers creative arts, the simmons university dean's advisory council of the gwen ifill college of media, arts and humanities and the james madison university flowering advisory council. elizabeth griffith is a historian and author and she is an expert on women's history politics, leadership and education. she teaches courses on women's history for the smithsonian associates and at politics and prose. elizabeth graduated from wellesley's wellesley college

and hillary clinton is class and they're dear friends and she has earned a doctorate from american university and was a kennedy at harvard mark up the grove is the president and ceo of the lbj foundation. he is a presidential historian for abc news. he is the author of five books on the president including in comparable grace, jfk and the presidency. early in his career, he was the director of lbj presidential library and publisher of newsweek. he has interviewed seven u.s. presidents. please join me in bringing to stage our archivists and the other members of the panel. please.

oh, good evening. welcome to the national archives. we're going to have a terrific conversation on this evening. talking wide conversation about, the history of rights in the united states, its origins where we've and really where we're headed. and we're going to reserve the last ten, 15 minutes of the program for questions. so save them up for the very end, and we'll try to get to as many questions as possible. so i'd like to start off our discussion and thank you to all our panelists for joining us this evening. of course. thank to mr. rubenstein for all of his support throughout the years to make this exhibit possible, to make these conversations possible. so we're going to start out this evening really at the beginning, which if you've been the exhibit, you know what the beginning of the exhibit starts with of course, with the magna

carta. originated 1215 and i'm just going to ask a very basic question. the magna carta was written in the middle ages. it wasn't even written. the enlightenment, which we typically associate with the origins of individual and human rights. it's one of the most influential documents on the american history of rights. how does a document written in 1215? how does that relate to what we conceive of in the united states today? why that the important and an important place to start. who would like to kick us off. further? magna carta declared that sovereign was subject to the rule of law. that was a big deal. it codified parts of the law. it represented resistance against oppressive authority. and of course, it enshrined a

bunch of privileged white men, the barons and the king. and from that seed, that seed really caught root, didn't i hadn't until i studied more realized that it had been revised over several decades. but it but because this country was explored and settled, europeans northern europeans people from christian judeo backgrounds, they brought them the seeds of the carta. the idea that there should be that government should have some connection to representation of the people it was governing. and and lot of attitudes. i return to patriarchy about who was going to be in charge if they'd come from someplace else we might have ended up with entirely different kind of government because. every civilization would have had seeds to some governmental planning. but it's true.

but it's that's what we have. it's remarkable that we have it here speaking for historian and every person who loves history archives are enormously important to saving these pieces of paper, being able to see them and whose papers we save have a lot to do about history. we recall and because white men were privileged and educated and had could afford pen and paper and had the leisure write and thought they were pretty big stuff. so they saved their documents. we have a lot those records. we're very fortunate. have abigail adams 1000 pieces of correspondence but we might not have had them at. her husband first of all been away not been away and then became famous because she's related to a famous person. she's not the only woman, although it would have been much because of the literacy the

privilege and the leisure. none of that. but we've lost so much. we we erased native american languages, so we don't have of those. we don't have enough women's records. i'm so grateful for the original slave narratives that were written by survivors and collected by fisk university in the 1950s. continued by a wpa project in the thirties. and now you're continuing that legacy without building locks. if you all are printing out your emails. there's going to be no work for people like pam. oh, there'll be work. we'll anyone else on some of the some of the early origins. not even necessarily limited to the back and cargo. well we were when we were talking about this panel and i want to say, first of all, david rubenstein, you've done an amazing for civics education and

archives and drawing attention to that. i don't know if you have not. where we would be as you know people who are dedicated to the preservation of our. i do want to say and we were having this discussion about the time of the magna carta because i was saying well what am i going to say about that because i can talk about the scrolls of timbuktu that unesco's did a major say sort of like movie like of taking the scrolls out of out of the country because of the tech. those were at that point in time, which is the same time, the 13th century, the magna carta is being written. there is. what we find in africa, timbuktu is the center of learning that that have things about rights. and i don't what those scrolls

even talked about rights. if in african society there was even the concept of rights. let's go forward to the declaration of independence. i some fascinating words are used in the preamble of the declaration. the notion that these rights an unalienable and that the truths that undergird these rights are self-evident. this is jefferson and his coauthors. he have a couple of coauthors that helped him with some of some of the wordsmithing in second draft. what does that mean. why does he use those words to describe the origins rights and what impact does that have upon? how we think of rights in the united states? mark, thank you. first of all, i want to another nod to the great david rubenstein, patriotic philanthropist, for what he what he has done for our country in preserving not only our documents, giving some of the

documents here at the the national archives, but at some of the sites that is preserved. we've seen in recent years that our democracy is not an inherent right. and the more we know about our history. the more we understand our need to preserve it so that we understand how go forward. and david rubenstein has been instrumental as a patriotic philanthropist and in bolstering our history. i would and i'll search for it's good to be home. i was a a employee of the national archives under, the leadership of david farrier when i was director of the lbj presidential library. it's always wonderful to be back in this institution and in the hands of such a capable leader. as colleague, i inalienable means that you can't take these rights away. they are unassailable. they're irrevocable. they are inherent. and and the founders come to

that document with that conviction. the fact they are self-evident, these rights self-evident, goes back to i think the documents that they were looking that the founders, the magna carta, the the 1688 bill of rights. they were evident by my virtue of english history and the rights that had been enshrined in documents that moved english society forward and gave ordinary english people. in the case of the magna carter, as you pointed out, betsy, it's like the declaration of independence. it's to the to the privileged to white men, but it evolves over time. it's a start. and that's, i think, what this conversation about that we start with a kernel of an idea and that idea evolves to be more inclusive to be more diverse and to to create a better society. a brilliant revolutionary idea. i just want to add. historians always to add footnotes. but this idea declarations

whenever some underrepresented group wanted to gain recognition or make a statement, they issued a declaration in 1833. william lloyd garrison found the american association with the declaration of sentiments. elizabeth cady stanton follows that idea in 1848 with her declaration of, rights and sentiments, and she replaces king george with, all men and says all men and women are created equal. it created huge fervor because everybody in america could recite the preamble and knew that those were not the words that had been used. and then in 1905, when w.e.b. dubois and 29 african-american men are starting the niagara movement that will segway into the naacp, they issue a declaration principles. so this idea that you can route back to the declaration that the gettysburg address counts back to the declaration.

it's it's an empower an idea that you might not have been included in the first draft. but you can rewrite your draft. and i wrote i read that jefferson didn't admit that he'd written it for nine years because he was so annoyed by the edit by the committee. he thought that his words were right and they shouldn't be messing with it in. any author can tell you that that's exactly how they feel. i would say, you know, with them because i represent the black here on this panel that it didn't matter what. there was a declaration or, there was maybe aspirations, but we had to go from being property to even being human beings the first place. then that's a pretty big fight. for some time. we don't really know. i'm very interested often in the area of the 7000 in our nation's

because there's not a great demarcation at that point or we don't know, maybe the archive can tell us, but not this great demarcation between black people and indentured servitude at that point. we don't know that. but at some that turns and what we know as our history here is often embellished in the antebellum south. i'm you know we have to look at but you know when you look at black history rich history in the early days of the country, you have to look at the northeast. so the first black lawyer the united states is moses simon. he is a graduate of yale. he's mixed race jewish and black he's a graduate of yale but goes to the first law school in the country field and starts his practice in new york in 1860.

but he goes to and has a burgeoning and then he goes to a dance and this woman calls mother's name and then he's disbarred. we also have look at the first black politician in the united states. that is, he's at the vermont house of representative. his name is alexander twilight. that's in vermont. but i just want to say that for people, this is aspirational. we have to go first. we have to prove that we are a human and that that construct is is a complicated construct, even as we today. so we've identified many of the contradictions that exist this document just, you know, on the about face slavery being obvious one women other people that are excluded and so much so that we know that there's a civil war that's fought to resolve at

least one of the of these contradictions. and we know that the civil war the primary cause of the civil war is slavery, because lincoln tells us in the second inaugural. so this is this is something that we understand to go forward. so why does it take a whole civil war fought over primarily over this issue, but yet it takes at least another 100 years for the articulation of basic civil rights, for. why is that the case? i'm not sure that the civil war i mean, i know say that. but the civil war was about in many ways and who was going to you know, i mean, you have the north and south. it's a economic issue of what is economically viable and splits the country. i don't think really i mean, i know that we you know, black people were freed, abolitionists and many black people played a

role in that in the freedom. black people being very active in that. there have been of instances of a resistance movements that are not ruling talked about in the public minds that knowledge set. but i really it takes it does take a hundred years. i mean i there and in the state of illinois where i live, we have one of the first nation civil rights passed in 1877 by our first state legislator, a man named john w thomas, who was born a slave and he was elected the state and passed this. but the problem is, is that, you know, it's not in dna. and so it's always aspirational. it's always yelling. and most of the persons i mean, this is the thing you have to look at who's leading the country and most of them are still either slave or an appoint

or. they're opposed to the rights of black people for the most part. and a lot of the policies coming out of, the federal government are actually that i think it took more than 100 years because i, i accept that the civil war was fought over property, but the property was people and it was about the extension of, the right to own those people into the west but but the deeply rooted racism of our country, the fear and resentment and, resistance to any change of the the clinging to the myth of the lost cause and the white. and to sort of wrap yourself in white supremacy, because even if you had never owned slaves, gave you a sense of superiority and people don't like to give up power and change. so it require endless efforts resistance, met with violent repercussion and we're still

seeing evidence of all of that. i do think we're, you know, made a lot of changes. there's been a lot of progress. but we have more to go and without fact based history curriculum and a lot of civics education, people not being afraid to see the flaws as in this country. we are a great and will be greater if we address the dark parts of the history and make changes so that we don't repeat those mistakes. john f kennedy said it very succinctly. he said change disturbs. and when we take leaps forward as a society, as a nation, we inevitably fall back by inches or steps. we never back to where we were and the arc of progressivism in our country. david, appreciate this. looks like to my mind, the dow jones index, it goes up, but are

capricious bull and bear whims as get as we go but we never go back to where we were. we never we go back to owning slaves. but we were set back by reconstruction. we didn't go as as we could have because reconstruction us back. but we have the 13th amendment enshrining the the fact that we cannot slaves in this country. we have lincoln's emancipation proclamation stating essentially that that slavery is immoral. we have his words on that count. so you can look at that again. it looks like through history we get and seen that recently. we had the first african-american president and in 2009 who served to noble terms in office. and then we get of a backlash through movements that we've seen in recent years is almost an inevitable aspect of american history. excuse me for rolling my eyes. but the remark about the forward and never going back, i just

want to say decision. well, fair enough. that is that is that is a particularly example. right. and others right. so that said but the risk remain. coretta king said you have to fight for rights. and every generation you cannot pretend that we want it. we have to keep fighting. and the fight is getting pretty fierce, right? i mean, but sometimes people get of fighting. right. exhausting. exhausting. right. fannie lou hamer, i'm sick and tired of being sick and tired but we've seen even with dobbs that you and there's a lesson all of us i think particularly with our democracy i think in large measure on the in the balance right now you to stay engaged. martin luther king this is engraved in the stone of his monument said famously the arc of the moral universe bends slowly toward justice. but that doesn't mean it bends on its own. what is essential, he says, is

we've got to bend. that's what the civil rights movement was all about. you've got to you. can't take your rights for granted. social movements is what moves policy in this country. you always have the troops are self-evident, but they're not self-executing, right? the self-evident is different than self-executing. so i wonder if you could. so what happens? the in the night is starting the 1940s or the 1950s? in the 1960s with civil rights has been resistance all along. it's not as though there is not articulations of resistance going forward. why do we start to see actual effectual change in this particular era moving forward? why is that? as historians, we've played a role. tv really played a role. i mean, it's the same thing as, you know, george floyd saying a black man killed, killed, live on television. tv played a major role and helped emmett till. i want to start than that.

it starts at the end. the civil war when the majority of african-americans are illiterate because it was illegal to teach anybody, to read or write. so between the efforts of the hbo and the freedman's bureau, this push to educate people on the blues. right. all of those. so you to educate, then you agitate. agitate, then you vote and march. but you can see that when you get the first generations of educate and high achieving african-americans who taking advantage of these opportune cities in the 1890s, in the 1900s, then you got the conflict between booker t washington who says let's keep the peace. let's not stir anything up. we'll just educate blacks for what they what they can safely do, farm be housekeepers, be nurses. and w.e.b. dubois is saying, no, they're going to learn latin and greek and history and science. they are. we are we are capable of all of this. and that tension will result in the naacp, which will lead to the naacp legal defense fund

beginning challenge, separate but equal. and the plessy decision in the thirties under thurgood marshall. and it's those cases by case that will build and to the 50. so you have you have public people agitating you have action the courts and you have a bunch of african americans in the south whose names we will never know. it was so risky to out of a church basement or to function as other than an agriculture agent or a teacher. because to do anything you would be beaten up, hung the klan put signs on black churches. if you if any member of this congregation registers, we will hang you and sanctuary. you know, we about the records of of the national and we tend to think of paper records but there are other records too including at the lbj presidential library,. 693 hours of taped telephone of conversations there of lyndon

johnson doing the business of his presidency. my favorite of all of those tapes is a conversation between linda johnson and martin luther king on january 15th, 1965, martin luther king's 36th birthday. and they're talking about they understand that they have a symbiotic relationship here and they need each other and. lyndon johnson realized he wants to get voting rights through, but he realizes that the movement is a very powerful tool for that civil rights movement, that that martin luther king is leading. and he says to him, if you show the worst voting suppression in the south and get on tv and, get in the newspapers, get on radio, get in the pulpits, and this a direct quote. he says, there isn't a fellow doesn't do anything all day but follow or drive a tractor. who won't say that isn't right. that isn't fair. so that television stuff, the fact that we have mass media at time plays an enormous role. and and you have to give lyndon

johnson credit because he realizes that americans are basically and they don't want to see injustice in their that they want to see justice done. and, of course that's exactly what happens. we get the brutal. the alabama state troopers brutally thwarting the march from selma to montgomery to the capital of alabama sorry. from selma to montgomery and the world sees this and soon thereafter we get voting rights enshrined into law. it's amazing that the american people are basically fair, but they have to be exposed to what's wrong in order to do what's right. the black who made that march from selma to montgomery had toilet paper and toothbrushes in their purses because they weren't sure they were going to make it. and it was equally likely they

would end up in jail. i, you know, i, i about that there was a lot of work, you know, really leading to the what we know is, the modern day civil rights movement. i remember once someone told me. that was trying to get involved in my project. i interview black people about their lives and we've interviewed like. 3600 people and 451 cities and tells that they told that, you know, black people hadn't done anything before the modern day civil rights movement. so i think that this i go back to this issue of, you know, this taboo issue, slavery, because i believe that issue has, you know, why don't want to feel guilty. i wasn't here. you know, i didn't do that. blah, blah, blah. and black people don't want to be embarrassed, you know, because, you know it's what was a slave. and i think we've really as a

nation acted an unintended complicity to what to cover up this wonderfully history that really i think that if we look back and there are a lot of records at the national archives 13 and a half billion. yeah. well i mean, you have you have you have let me just say this. you have a lot of material on the black experience here probably than any other archive does in terms of volume and you know and so i really am hoping because are all these different alliances that the you know there are people helping people and different places around we and and there's horrific things that happened as it relates black people but there are also a lot of heroic things and i really think that if we can get into the archives and really expose them, we're going to see

we're going to learn our true history, not the fictionalized accounts that still permeate our society and really, i believe until the united states can raise up other. but we will never have the melting pot that we were intended to be. i also because of work women are not recognized well. they're not documented well and and society period. black are not lots of other entities are not. the archives been the province of white males, but in within the archives hold really a lot of the truth of their project useful things. but there are also a lot of truth there that i think if we see them and explore, we become the nation that were intended to be. but there's a whole segment of the exhibit that covers exactly that. it's a really great segway. women's rights and the history. women's rights. women, at least women are

considered as citizens. the history of the united states. but without rights without the rights to divorce, without the rights to property, financial independence, rights to their children. so when do women start to realize is that that they need to also clamor for their rights and and claim back the rights that have been denied to them. when did that start? i think the question women and citizenship is complicated from the beginning. they are they accounted for body count. they related to taxes, inheritance taxes. but nobody ever thinks because of common law. anglo european influence that women are independent legal entities they are owned by other people not and quite as dangerous and violent away. but you're the property of, your father. you're the property of your husband. the only time you really have a chance is if you have been widowed and you're not poor. if you are a widow and have

inherited, then you have some chance of some life as early as 1645. i think it is margaret brandt is appealing to the burgesses, the governors council in maryland because she owned she is the largest property owner in maryland. 2000 acres. but she's single and she says i should be represented in this body. and they say, not a chance. no woman is going to be represented. but in 1745, maria chapman and uxbridge, massachusetts has inherited the property, the wealthiest man in town. so she is now the wealthiest person in town, the highest taxpayer. so they let her vote because she has. so the link from the founders of power to property when women have a right to property that lasts for a long time until. their fathers decide they don't want their money being inherited by wastrel sons law. so in the middle of the 19th century, you begin to some

property rights agitation. i would say that women always wanted some rights. they just had way to get them and they were in a somewhat parallel position of very little and exhaustion. you know, women are from multiple childbirth. they are valued in certain circumstances. who were partners on farms, the frontier. and when we were an agrarian society had value because they converted products into marketable. midwives were valued. teachers would be valued when in the federal period we people needed to be able to read even if they vote, they should be able to read the newspapers and debate. debate. but the right to vote issue comes out of the abolition movement. black and white reformers are deciding that they need to address black issues and prompts some women to think wait, wait, maybe we ought to also talk about voting rights for other people. so think so. and what what motivates women is

that they want to they want to contribute. they are community builders. they want to change things, reform things. and you cannot do that if you have no power, if you only have moral suasion, you might be able to close down a brothel, but you may not be able to actually. where are you allowed to sign a petition against slavery? could you could you get sewers for your street? could you create a kindergarten system? couldn't unless you could vote. so after the civil war, you have a lot of people who slowly and white women both agitating the right to vote because it's going to allow them to change the lives of the people they care about and something that both mark and juliana talked about was, you know, the idea that television helps, that the media helps to to draw the plight. how about the suffragists? i mean, they don't have television, but they're pretty close. they figure out a way at, the very end to catch attention and i used to say when the women's

centennial commission that they were the original tweeters, they the original social media, although there was no social media, but knew what they were doing. so how did they do and kind of proves consequential at end. alice paul was a social influencer, but she didn't change very many votes. but suffrage passes in 1920 because alice paul had stirred the pot and by marching the day before is inaugurated. on march 3rd, 1913, filling the streets. they are attacked by drunk guys in town so the the riot makes the news but she draws attention to a federal amendment and then she's the person who the white house she has she had lots of good ideas women in airplanes, women driving automobile bills. but she's not a vote counter for that. you need carrie chapman kat, head of the national association of women's suffrage. and she is running this two tier campaign. she's getting suffrage in the states. so if you could vote in the states, you could vote for members of congress, you could vote for president.

you have impact on the electoral college. and she's trying to influence the congress, need two thirds of the congress, three quarters of the states. so cats scuttle your cards. a brilliant she doesn't know she does she's she's a brilliant strategist wilson was opposed. for six of his eight years but he but because women contributed to the first world war he could say it was a war measure. so he goes to the senate says we have to give women the right to vote. should all be sacrifice leaves the senate they vote against it. they dismiss him. but by the time it finally passes and. of 1919, women are already voting in 27 states. it's one of the reasons it passes because those in congress know who's voting home. so then they the ratification fight very hard fight comes down to one state. tennessee was only state that even got a prayer of calling a special action. they strong arm the democratic because it's a presidential year. he and kat goes, not there.

kat goes. and the first vote and so to all the liquor interests go so they're have a 24 hour hospitality suite in the hermitage hotel and the legislature drunk carrie chapman kat they're rolling around the hallways will they sober up. the senate sobered up. they're deathly afraid that women are going to bring the end to people were afraid that women would reform factories or, you know, prohibition, do all the stuff. the senate sobers up, it passes suffrage. they have 35 and a half of the 36 votes they need and they don't have a whip count for the house because people keep changing sides. harry byrd, 24 years old, in his first term from east tennessee. he goes in we're in the red rose of the opposition he's got a letter in his pocket from his mom. dear harry, not sure how you're voting, but i certainly hope you're supporting mrs. catt and ratification. be a good boy, harry changes his vote because of one vote.

27 million women got suffrage suffrage and it never would have happened if they hadn't won that vote. that wouldn't have happened in the twenties. it wouldn't have happened during the depression. it would have happened at the end. the second world war. so it takes i'm all for marching. i've marched a lot in my life. i have a friend who i met marching. in 1972 for the equal rights, but marching isn't enough. you need to vote. you need to lobby. you need to be able to count votes and you need to be able to influence the legislature. go ahead. gradually, i'm one, i have to say. i help, but think about like what would have had the suffragists movement really been integrated like if susan d anthony had not been so horrible to the suffragettes. you know that. what direction that would have

had in terms of power. now, i think that that would have been frightening but you know we were spurned and so the rights you start seeing the the fissures that continue even until the fissures deep. let me give you a quick fact correction just a just an addition additional point. the schism starts between black and white women with the passage of the 15th amendment, because stanton and anthony were vehemently rabid racist in their response to that, they wanted white women included not just black men, and they wanted black women included. they wanted universal suffrage for which there were seven votes in the congress among radical opponents. but kat has by 1915. kath created a bi multiethnic, class wide coalition. she's working with mary church. terrell she's working with the national association of colored women and the acp, the last killing amendment on the suffrage was for it to be white only from the the guy from mississippi whose name i've

forgotten and taken his name off a building at the university of mississippi. we won't have to remember it, but she calls on the women of the naacp to lobby and so the the resists the white only and they would have liked that a lot because the senate was controlled by southerners but the bill that passes is not a white only suffrage but suffrage is earned then they turn their backs because while black women are included, of course in the suffrage in the 19th amendment. you no protections were offered. so if you if you still lived in the south you were suffering the same kind of violent reprisals of black men. there was not to be much voting until you moved out of the south, but everybody i mean, the entire suffrage coalitions, because everybody had their self-interest rather than see strength and coalition, they went in every direction and they succeeded at nothing. and kind of that now just goes back to store. were saying betsy, you were talking about how suffrage got

passed and so frequently you see history on the thinnest of margins, right? just one vote or a handful votes or a few people standing up for others changes. the course of history you see time and time and time again, which is why we all need to stay engaged. it is history begs us to to remain engaged in in our country, our affairs to to pay attention and to act accordingly. another part of the exhibit. the other part of the exhibit, besides civil rights. women's rights. there's also a very nice segment of the exhibit about immigration in united states. and this is, of course, a very important that we're all thinking about today, which you can really understand when you look at the exhibit is the unevenness over time at immigrants coming the country for the pursuit of happiness, the exercise of their rights but

throughout, if targeted at different groups since this is country made up of predominantly of immigrants into immigration into this country. why do we think about the origins of such hostility to these groups over time the groups change who the hostility is targeted towards. it's not the same groups, but they change over time. but the hostility is there. why is that? why is there that tension texas you get? well, i'm not from texas, but i got there as soon as i could. i said to it goes to i think. it goes back to what? what david rubenstein was saying earlier. and that is think we are inherently a as a species, we're inherently tribal and consequently we our base instincts are often to be nativist and and xenophobic and suspicious of others who don't look like us we've only evolved in recent years, as david

alluded to, to to thinking about equal rights for all americans. i mean, that's that's a it's something that we just put into law 50 years ago. it's amazing. so but that is that is and so immigrants are easy for demagogues to call out as the other and so that we can be fearful. lbj but so many things. well, but of the things one of my favorite quotes is he said any -- can knock down a barn door, but it takes -- fine carpenter to build one and it's easy to strike a match and to burn something down and to stir fear, anger and indignation. and that's a really powerful political tool so frequently throughout history, although there are a nation has been built on the backs of enslaved people and, immigrants, they are often those who are -- and subjugated and exploited for

political purposes. and i think that's that's humanistic. read something a little interesting that suggests that immigrants to this point in our history are are less -- than they have ever in our history. we are exploiting that immigrant card less than we ever have throughout the course of our history, which is to some is somewhat encouraging. i just want us to reflect, on the expression, nativist, because who were the natives and what did we do to them. yeah. again, fear. fear of the other. but i'm recalling that one of the charges against king george in the declaration of independence was that he wasn't allowing us to grow our population. he was immigration into the country. and we wanted to have more people come. that must have been short lived. i recently learned that the expression white replacement is not a new term, but it's rooted

in the 1850s. it's actually rooted in the history of abortion, which was legal in this country not even called that until the 1860s, but an enterprising graduate, harvard medical school, horatio storer, was worried about competition from midwives in his obstetric practice. so he said that these native women by whom he meant white women who'd been more than one generation white, middle women, needed to stop white, middle class married women needed to stop limiting the size their families. because we were going to be overrun by the irish catholics just this fierce antipathy and we and whites, native whites be replaced. it just struck me that that term keeps coming up whenever we to be hateful towards somebody, we kept bringing in immigrants because we needed we needed cheap workers and exploited workers. we pitted them, freed african

americans. and what i don't get about the current crisis about immigration is we still need workers and we're resisting the need in so many occupations that could be filled, we could solve this problem. yeah, you know what what i find interesting thing about the fact that the thing that we feel was the strength of the united states, you know, is all the diversity bring in all people from different. and what i really love myself about being in that it's a struggle because you put all of those in one place it's not going to and are already conflicts before you coming into the states between different nation states. i find that fascinating but i keep hoping that we can hold on to our you know, the founding principles which i call aspirational because at the best that brings out best of us and

and shows what can be possible. but we have this problem. i know with the migrants. i mean, you know it's we're calling migrants not immigrants. so what's the difference? that's what i'm asking. you know, what is the difference at the of being pollyanna? i actually we are more accepting of immigrants than most countries because of our origins. madeline albright used to tell wonderful stories. i interviewed her some years ago at a summit we did the lbj library on on race in america and she was talking about being an immigrant into this country. her family fled nazi germany, first went to england and then went to america. and her father would say the wonderful about america versus other places. when we settled in england, people would ask, how long are you staying? when we settled in, people would ask, when are you going to a

citizen? and the fact that our our separate area of state was relating the story, her, her life's experiences is truly remarkable and a testament to our country. so one last question before we go to the audience. as i walked around the there's many themes that that struck me. but one of them and we touched upon it here in various answers is the role of resistance. so i'll just ask a simple question when is resistance justified to secure rights in a democracy democracy? it's toughie. well, for me, i like. i think it often is when there's no other option that you see resistance taking hold. but resistance has not always been success before, but it's often the last option in terms it being acceptable.

the last option i'm for resistance. i'm a veteran marcher. i see you. but but it's resistance. resistance against oppression. resistance to expand rights not. resistance not. and i wouldn't even call it resistance. i'd call it in when you're trying to other people, when you're trying to change your government to do something else, resistance to influence your government, to to show how passionate people are, to object to jim crow law, to object to racial violence, to object to supreme court decisions you don't like. i think that's part of our democratic and we should embrace it. so sort of educated, informed resistance is good, but we need to find where the line is. i worry if our country is unable to protect its institutions, if

i mean, we all sort of cling to hope that everybody will be sensible. and remember all the strengths of our history, the aspirations of the declaration. and we'll be okay. but should we not be okay? who's going to resist that. john lewis called it good trouble or good trouble. and i think we have to get into good trouble when we are not living up to our highest ideals necessary to whom they terrific. do you have questions from guests, from our audience? if we have to microphones here? okay. sure. i just wanted to that it wasn't until 1924 and snyder act before natives could be citizens and on top of that it was still had to be implemented the states and it wasn't. until 1948 that the supreme court of arizona declared that the the in the constitution

which prohibited natives from being able to vote was unconstitutional. the issue was that because native americans indigenous people were of their tribes they were thought of as foreign nationals. that's why they aren't included in the constitution, why they had to be granted citizenship. but it was a hollow citizenship because it did come with voting rights and, while eight 1948 was the beginning of those lawsuits in arizona and new mexico, they lasted all the way until the voting rights act, because there are 16 states think about from maine to idaho, then down the down the rocky mountains and into the that had very large population of indigenous people and one could say indigenous tribes voting rights are not protected. now of how far it is to get to a voting place, how are you have to have street address and reservations do not have street addresses. there are many issues we should be paying attention. thank you for saying.

you talked about 1924 and it bears that that was a particularly nativist, xenophobic period when we instituted the national origins act, which restricted non-western european. yes immigration for 50 years until. lyndon johnson signed into law the immigration of 1965, which fundamental changed the face and heart and soul of our nation. i opening up those restraint. but by away those restrictions and i'm looking at the woman there whose grandfather signed that into law to send around. i just need add that there were two women who pushed that 1924 indian citizenship rights act. so it was pushed by some of these women who were underrepresented high. so i pick up the paper today and i wind up being incredibly depressed. so i am hoping that you all can

tell me something from your research that maybe person only gives you hope, something somebody did. you've actually told a lot of great stories tonight, but i'm going to go for even more. something that inspires you and thinks that is sort of what we need today. that is what we can do again. anything, anything. julianna, betsy, mark, that that maybe is meaningful. you that makes you feel like. yes there this is a story that gives me when when i read the paper and i'm thinking, oh boy, this is not a good day. lucinda travis a taylor aren't enough for you. you should. that's not i mean, you have to you have to sort of cling to hope wherever you can find. it here's a go and listen to rob worked the archives and i was a teaching women's history she was putting together archival materials classroom teachers to use and she me to come visit the archives. it was my time to go into the vaults and she's casually opening drawers and i'm seeing treasures and then she pulls

open this drawer and it's franklin roosevelt's typed day of infamy speech with his pencil changes, you could tell i have never forgotten that one for historian. i you for that i thank the archives. i'm an optimist. i mean, we we fought a civil war and we came out of it and we attempted reconstruct and we messed it up. but we got there eventually. people are offended by acts of racial violence. i think now i mean i think sense it's come and people are by those actions now more know the black lives matter marches were biracial marches all the country i cling to the hope there is goodness and common in the american voter and that we may pull through yet. but today's paper, other than the football news was not great. i would say that while i worry

where i'm i'm worrying right now. except i like live in my archive for this stuff all these wonderfully rich stories, but i would say that, you know, i really worry about losing the the documentation of the 20th century with black people. and i literally i remember coming to meet with you in your office when you were nasdaq this but i, i worry the lack of document issues of the 20th century that every death it's going. i also when you talk about positive i think the black experience is pretty somewhat amazing a lot of people on rodney slater who's one of our history makers you know when you hear their stories you hear about you know and just the

general you know a generation. two that people are going you know memories of enslaved state to in this case you know president united states or or you know having tremendous that would not be conceivably thought possible our lifetime and so the fact that there are lots of incidents of of of people really accomplishing, you know, against great odds. i'm hopeful but i'm still worried. i'm worried about this time period we're in right. i would say, listen, a i am an optimist by, instinct and experience in my life and and reading about history makes you an optimist because you do see how we get better time. but i would say one of the things that worries me is that americans i was to secretary slater about this in greenroom

before he came out there are studies that show that a greater number of are willfully tuning out the news because it's a depressing nature more than ever before. 8% of americans are willfully unhinged, caged because they don't like what reading because because everything is doom and gloom and i worry about this i worry like i've never worried in my lifetime about the future of our country. a couple of things that give me hope and it goes back to voter turnout, which you were talking about earlier, betsy, and that is if you if you look the election of 2020, more americans out to vote than ever before. if you look the midterms where election was on the ballot and the highest races where reproductive were on the ballot, generally speaking, democracy and reproductive rights, one, i want to be respectful of those who have a different view reproductive rights than i might, but suggest that the majority americans want

reproductive. and so our government. our laws should reflect in so many ways the majority of the american. so i was encouraged by the fact that we saw big turnout in the in the midterm elections and reproductive rights and democracy were elevated beyond kitchen table issues where at a time when the economy was relatively poor better now so those things give me hope. you know i want to add to that you just the thought like the role of social media versus the role of tv social media really is tribalism. i mean, it's it it's it's divisive a way that we never thought it can expose and can educate, but can also put you getting more of your beliefs structure in a major way that is concentrated and not allow for

different to rise up and that is what i think i'm fearful of. i'm also fearful new technology and just the change that emerge. you know, because i was thinking when when the railroad came, when the airplane was created, was there a time that it was just moving, you know, so fast that people thought, my god, this is the end of society as we know it? i don't know about that those times, but i do worry about when people would happen. when women start. there was a u.s. study the obama foundation did recently that reflected the fact that the majority of americans believe that the biggest threat to democracy is the fragmentation of our media ecosystem. and they also think it's the most issue and i think that that's probably right there desperately needs to be some reform as it relates to social media in particular, where 80%

of americans are getting their news. that's right. i will note, though, that when the printing press came into being, you know, there was the same people who said that this was the end because now everybody was going to have access to books and books weren't just going to be reserved for the elite and they would be right. and so people feared. the fact that the printing press was going to undermine the stability society. and we figured that out. so we're in the very early stages of social media. so i still remain i understand. i agree with you that there's tribalism on social media like we haven't seen before in anything else. and it completely undermines madison's defense of an extended republic and in the federalist and all the things we cling to. but i still don't think that end has been written on on this this technology that's my optimistic statement. yes. so i'm a i'm currently a college student studying history and political science, a double major. and one thing that i've i've

loved history ever since i was little, one major question that i've always had my mind on is ever since last year, i read the federalist and the anti federalist papers for political philosophy. so and we connected those books to the 21st century and with my interest in immigration and history, guarding the golden door, my question for all three of you is what? for someone who is becoming to become an aspiring historian, what is a archived document that historians in the next generation should look at that is vital for our 21st century? let's just pass that right? well, i mean. well, you know, i know. so you're looking for the the 21st century version of the federalist or just some like his

important historical documents that talk about that we can connect it to commerce. but that historical document, that talk about it. well, i mean, i will say this, the national archives, i mean, immigration. but i mean, we are using artificial intelligence to have access to large of information that we never had been able to make available before and not necessarily immigration. but we before right before i arrived, the ability to have the 1950 census online and searchable because the ability to use artificial intelligence and pattern recognition to be able to read handwriting and to be able to search and find people in that 1950 census. imagine all of the born digital documents we will have once we get this ahold of of ai in a responsible way that we will be able to provide access to those documents and to that information in ways that have

never been possible before. so, you know, there is something that we're losing from the value of not being to see the printed document in front of you, but the powers when we harness that technology, be able to see across periods of time, make comparisons across, look at things from, you know, a statistical and quantitative analysis, make inquiries that were never possible before. that's all going to be real. you're going to be able to come to the archives to it. so i think the future in that is very, very bright. time for one more question. i just welcome. sorry. okay, sorry. i want to applaud you and your major because we're at a time period right now, not only the attack of the of teaching on black history in schools, but in the colleges and universities, yes, there is the humanities are under attack. and we cannot have humane and civil society and educate the society without the humanities in school and college is right

now it's business and stem and and we and i. i really thank you because. we need a lot more than that. yeah. so one last question. thank you. thank you my name is ibrahim luqman and i was a 15 yo. i got arrested in columbus, georgia in 1963. this past spring i went back to teach a class on civics and they told that i had to submit what my talk was going to be about. and had to coincide with the georgia standards of education. and i mean, i did that. and then they flagged something because one of the things i wanted to talk about was the southern manifesto. you were talking about preambles and all those other things, and they said, you know, they they initially told me i couldn't about that because that was not a part of the georgia standards of education. so my thing is that when talk about the records of documents, you can't just cherry pick the documents. the southern manifesto was a

document that the southern legislators put together in order to fight brown versus board of education. it should be required reading you know. although students in civics in my hometown, columbus, georgia. how would you respond to that if they challenged you and said you couldn't use that? i'd insist i'd do, you know, whatever need to do. we need fact based history. i was thinking when nikki haley said when she couldn't the question about the cause of the civil war, which was not only in lincoln's second inaugural, but in the south carolina senator who's speaking the firing on sumter, why we are doing this, and it has a lot of really nasty things to say about african and their inferior authority. and don't do that anyway as property. i was thinking she grew up in an era where we don't know what textbooks the school boards of carolina had approved.

i'm pretty sure that at texas and south carolina that a lot of southern states taught a curriculum that was different than we're taught in other places. i do not think any of that education was adequate, certainly didn't learn enough african-american history in the in the west. i didn't learn that there were slaves throughout the north and before the colonial period. i mean, there's a lot that we just have not been taught. you have to be carefully taught and we have to keep trying to teach those things. i bet, i bet the southern manifesto is in the ap black history class. you know, i think i want to give a nod to you all know about presidential libraries and the national archives, but we have arms educational departments in these institutions and right now in in texas as you may have heard there's been some direct awakening in measures to prevent a more inclusive teaching of history. sb 17 is the law that was passed and one of the things that we are doing in our education

department at the lbj presidential library is teacher workshops to ensure that teachers teach history as inclusively as without stepping outside of the bounds of what they can and cannot do. there's a lot of fear among educators right now about running afoul of the state government. so i'm proud of the work that the juliana yeah. i just want to add, i mean this this to me. what i'm not fearful i find it fascinating. we're at a point since the founding of the united states, that we see the emergence of state rights and states are like laws that are being passed and. the laws are don't follow these laws about the teaching. like you can't make someone bad. like i, you know, i mean, there's so amorphous that, you know, litigation comes as a result of that and there will be

interpretation those laws are going to be on the books. you know, i think there is that or 20 states that have antecedent anti crt laws, those laws are going to be in the books forever because almost impossible to change that. so i, i, i do worry about i worry about because i'm seeing the real instance of people's saying to me, just like you, sir, i've had people recently say, i'm you've been asked speak and i can't use the word black. i know what my project is about black people. so how black not black history or, you know, keep your comments on the up and up. what does that mean? don't mention names. so these these are real situations that are almost mccarthyism in their in their affect and that's what i fear you know, that's going on over and over again because people, you know, teachers don't know what to do.

administrators, archivists. i had an archivist who was trying to get hell out of a florida because. they didn't know what decisions to make based on the laws that are there. so we have there's a lot that we have in front of us. i but there are those people who are really trying to do the right thing because is the thing when i was a young in class my hometown which there were thousand blacks and 50,000 whites, i was just embarrassed. i mean, everybody seemed to know their background, their history. and there i was, cowering over, not knowing mine. and i just don't think it's fair for any child to feel they don't have a legacy to, call their own. that is a part of american paradigm. so that. sort sort. i want to thank our panelists for just a terrific

conversation. thank you for your participation. and of course, thank you for david rubenstein being able to facilitate these types of conversations from the exhibit that everybody can enjoy here at the national archives and of course, the national archives foundation for their support as well. and thank you for attending an evening.