very quick question because you have been standing there, but it has to be very quick. >> one piece of advice that you would give to the younger generation, the riders and sociologists have called them generation why. the fact that they are very self-centered, very into themselves. the trophy kids because they get a trophy for bidding up in the morning. my concern is this generation, what one piece of advice would you give them to read and still some activism and idealism in this group? >> okay. it can be of one word answer. >> work for an hourly wage. >> that is a good one. >> at think i would say what joyce said before, go somewhere else, another country. live there. >> be curious about the

for my visit. what i want to do tonight is talked somewhat briefly in the kind of an overview way about what i try to do in this book that i wrote, going to talk about it basically in terms of two threads. first, this book is designed to offer an update history of washington, d.c. during the civil war and reconstruction that highlights the significance of the national capital for understanding reconstruction at large. second, the book makes an argument about the importance of the debate over the meaning of the quality and the period after the sleeve emancipation. i want to say something about my approach. i'm interested in the relationship between people and government, policy and the law. this isn't strictly social or political history, it isn't legal history but it's kind of a combination of all three. the focus is on the legal and popular development of the concept of equality. on the process by which people make claims on the government and how policies are shaped by

popular politics and hauer in turn political and juridical structures shape and constrain the arguments that are available, the claim is possible, indeed the very lives people live. now, why did i study washington? this slide didn't turn out particularly well as it translated but this is an 1862 map of the city of washington. the capitol is often seen as an anonymous city, one whose history wouldn't necessarily tell us anything useful about anywhere else besides itself. this is largely because washington is entirely a creature of the federal government. it didn't spring up as an industrial hub, it isn't a state, it is an oddball. the federal district and the city of washington itself were invented by the united states government

the ways that it wasn't, and in particular in its relationship to congress, it is a particularly interesting and telling place to study. and i just want to -- i know this might be a little hard to orient on this map because it doesn't actually represent the city we know now i'm going to point out a few landmarks. the first is the capitol, there's the white house.

that is where the washington monument is and you can see that mall as we know it now beyond that would be the lincoln memorial, that is a landfill, so it is a period i'm talking about the mall kind of ended and the potomac river began just to the left for the washington monument is a you can see the effect of the urban development on the capitol. finally, that is dupont circle and gives you the sense that the grid kind of populated urbanized area was smaller than the washington we know now, anything up passed on connecticut avenue toward the park up past where hauer howard university is now, none of those made it onto the map not because people didn't live there but because those were not considered the kind of mean parts of washington city so that kind of gives you the sense that we are talking about a city that is a relatively smaller of course than the city we know now

as washington. now i'm going to talk about this washington history touching on three different points. first, i'm going to talk about the relationship of african american history to this story. second, the story of urban reform in washington and its context and third, why washington was an example for all the land. first, washington was a sight of remarkable african-american activism in this period, and i like to talking kind of general terms about three groups that made up african-american washington. first, from before the civil war, washington was a hub for free african-americans. in 1860, 60% of black washingtonians were freed rhetoric and enslaved, and what that meant was that there was an enormous kind of culture of organized institutions among african-americans, there were churches, civil society kind of

organizations. african-american men and women ran schools, there were a fair number of people who left d.c. for higher education and went to the north to get educated and then returned and often became teachers. some also worked in federal positions in the federal government not necessarily or not tall in kind of clerical positions but as messengers and so forth and in those roles the actually knew many of the most powerful men in the country, so interestingly, the free black washingtonians, many of them had powerful ties to people who could help them later and these folks, the kind of free african-americans who lived in washington before the war were placed to exert a special kind of leadership as emancipation took shape. the second population where the thousands of the former slaves who came to the capitol from maryland and virginia during the civil war, these people were often peacekeeping from slavery,

and they kind of became the backbone of washington because there were so many people, so many thousands of people come and they became important political constituency for the republican party, they started up their own political course going forward, and the third group were african-american northerners for people who had been born in the south and came back like frederick douglass as an example of the prominent african-american northerners who came to washington in this period because they wanted to be close to the heart of the political nation, they wanted to get involved and activism and because they were looking a little bit later that washington's really and parallel african american educational institution. so what does slide shows is a celebration of emancipation in washington in 1866, and this is the image that is on the cover of my book and one of the reasons i like it is the figures

on the foreground or so interestingly drawn. in the center -- i hope you can see this in a sort of relatively well, in the center you have a set of three figures, a man and two women who are really well-dressed wearing a relatively fancy clothes. off to the right use the figure of two women and a younger sort of smaller woman wearing much more casual clothes, a prince and head scarves, more characteristic of people who had been enslaved and then off to the left in the photograph you see a group of men sort of similarly dressed and what i like about this is that the artist who drew the picture was able to capture some of the diversity's and kind of class diversity of washington's african-american community in this picture. now beginning during the civil war, black washingtonians sought

recognition as members of specific body and full and equal access to streetcars, theaters, public schools and even the proceedings of congress. the demand fair treatment by the police and a fair share of public works employment, equal access to trade unions and official recognition of the militia organizations. looking at what was going on here with all of these claims and demands was an eye towards the relationship of the popular activism and policy it became clear to me african-americans were demanding rights and privileges in advance of legislation. in the book i call those claims upstart claims to emphasize that these were not claims to existing rights, nor where they supported by existing policies. let me give you an example of that. in the spring of 1863 as the recruitment was under way for the black unions regimen what became the first u.s. colored troops commanded by the way, this isn't really them, this a

photograph of the fourth colored trip at the end of the war but i think it's a nice total in part because it represents black soldiers with their uniforms on and uniforms play an important role here. so the first u.s. colored troops were being recruited into the new soldiers immediately while sort of beginning to pull the different companies and rich men together began to demand access to the city's street cars. the cars themselves were a wartime innovation. they were built in order to facilitate getting trips and materials from one side of the city to the other and washington and also the general public that washington never had three cars before 1862. now, when they were first running they needed their practice to either completely exclude african-americans from the street cars or to make them right on the platform. you could see two guys kind of in the front row behind the horses. the gimmick african-americans want to write write separately on the platform and you can

imagine that if it was raining or sleeping or also just muddy which washington was famous for its mud. he would be much more exposed to the elements. it's not as nice a place to write. the soldiers didn't wait for the lawmakers to recognize or create a right to ride. they sought to create themselves by demanding equal access while wearing useful uniforms that publicly declared them to be worthy of respect and even deference. legislators of the capitol took note and began to discuss the matter and that winter, so this protest kind of insisting on the right to ride begins and 18 -- the spring of 1863 and by this winter of 1864 the man alexander augusta who was an african-american physicians in the u.s. army he was refused a seat while official who business. he was forced to walk to a court-martial hearing in the

rain and so he was very annoyed that they wouldn't allow him to sit down inside of the car and he outlined the incident in a letter to a military judge and forwarded it to senator charles sumner who read it on the floor of the senate. so what i'm describing here is a process of committee popular and pulse of everyday soldiers followed by a more prominent man making a direct protest and all of this because it's washington is being discussed in congress at the same time. so in the case of the street cars and other cases as well, black activism spurred the republican dominated congress to act. some congressmen including charles sumner were primed for action because of their own view that the emancipation shouldn't stop with mere freedom but should lead to the implementation of what were essentially abolitionist ideals of the racial equality. this is a notion that freedom itself would indeed be enough in a country that was going to

emancipation but policies would need to be implemented to produce a more equal society that simply think slavery couldn't exist only with the beginning. sit together, black activists and congressional my activism need the capitol an exemplar of racially progressive policy nationwide. from 1862 when the congress decreed emancipation for the capitol months ahead of the emancipation proclamation until about 1869. and some examples of that are the end of the black code regulatory discrimination of 1862, the passage of the law against discrimination on any kind of public conveyances st cards conrail rose and steamboats and 1865 universal manhood suffrage in 1867, again, before the universal manhood suffrage was mandated for the former confederate states and then the dropping of the racial qualifications for office

holding and jury service in 1869. now in the book i pay particular attention to the right to go because it is with the vote people are able to shift the priorities of the civil government. african-americans have about one-third of the population could yield a considerable power in the electorate and they did so. during the period when the republicans were in charge of the city government, that is before major reorganization of the structure of the government which i'm going to talk about an imminent, the local government passed its own local public accommodations laws that is part of and discrimination in a variety of accommodations and appointed african-american men to the prominent office is and also the populace elected black men to the city council. most important perhaps, the city government inaugurated major public works project and distributed jobs on the projects fairly between black and white laborers, so you see with the onset of the black man's right

to vote in washington dramatic changes in the local city government. this cartoonists from harper's weekly. it's titled the georgetown election, the negro with the ballot box and because georgetown held its elections, its first election where black men could vote before washington did and so all our eyes to what the nation more on this election to see how it went and this cartoon features the kind of typical kind of characters or stock figures. to have an african-american man casting his ballot, behind him a republican looking like lincoln with a top hat, behind him, the guy second from the left has a csa on his hat, kind of bitter former consider it and he's standing next to and kind of supporting the man on the left to sandra johnson, the president who vetoed the universal manhood suffrage legislation congress has passed for washington and then congress had overridden

that veto so johnson is clinging to his veto, physically clinging on to the veto one of the african-american men cast their vote. so, the second major thread i want to talk about is about the impact of what you might call urban reform on washington. so the book tells the story of the dramatic restructuring of the government of the district of columbia, first in 1871 and again in 1874. that is first the restructuring of washington as a territorial government and then, the commission form and i argue that these innovations in the form of government, the first of which demanded by a bipartisan coalition of local business leaders, these innovations were direct responses to or more precisely reactions against the construction changes, particularly the enfranchisement of african-american men.

most historians believe the leader of the business coalition that sought to reorganize the existing structure of government, alexander shepard as a visionary who sought to allay the capitol city from the mud and backwardness of its antebellum past. what they don't do is play separate strides for reform in the context of slave emancipation, black migration into washington, african-american activism and the onset of the black man's voting rights. my argument is shepard and the coalition were doing is leading a backlash against the black men enfranchisement and redistribution of power that accompanied it. they called themselves taxpayers and citizens and persuaded the congress to restructure the government first creating a territory which dramatically reduced the power of elected office holders so under the territorial government the only elective offices that remained were lower house of the legislature but all of the most

powerful offices in the government for now held by appointed officials and i call this creation of a territorial government washington's first redemption in order to emphasize in the name of good government and progress and this is consistent with movements elsewhere in the south to remove republicans from office. i should say that shepard while in power his government which lasted from 1871 to 74 accomplished quite a bit in terms of modernizing the city and this is the bird's eye view of the city from the period that shows an amazing detail if you see the actual image some of the development particularly the northwest quadrant of washington during this period and i think it is interesting the placement of the capitol dome itself kind of direct your eye right towards the area of northwest washington, the area of what is now dupont circle and logan circle that more than the places

that were pro development government and the kind of real estate investor friends were focusing their development so a lot of the remaining kind of beautiful brick buildings in that area for those of you familiar with the area around logan circle and dupont circle are not too many of them are actually from the 1870's but a model from the 18 eighties and date back to this period of focused development on that section of washington. >> so the accomplish a great deal but at an enormous expense in the sense that the government that they control was not a government elected by the people locally. the second stage of washington's redemption beginning 1874 when the congress once again reorganized the d.c. government this time placing it under the control of a three man commission. in this configuration, no one could vote for any elected official and washington was

governed exclusively by three men appointed by the president of the united states and confirmed by the senate. it was at the time considered very remarkable that in the capitol of the united states of america, the people themselves were not allowed to choose their own representatives for the local government, and in fact, that situation, the commission form of government would last into the 1960's in fact, formerly the home rule wasn't restored to washington, d.c. until 1973 so for close to a hundred years this situation persisted, and the story that i am telling helps us understand how that commission form of government was directly related to the politics and particularly the racial politics of the reconstruction era. the third point i want to make stems directly from that last point. washington has an eye example for all the land. this quotation is from charles sumner, the massachusetts senator who works closely with

black activists to pass legislation for the district of columbia the represented the most racially progressive policies possible at that time. conversely though as congress politics shifted and a new coalition gained the upper hand in washington, d.c., the congress prerogative in washington made the capitol and example of a different kind, an example of this franchise not. the creation of the commission governor was part of a broad climate in both the north and the south of distrust and fear of space self-government whereas in the north movements to dramatically limit the power of urban voters and primarily the voters most often maligned and attacked where voters of irish descent. movements to dramatically limit their power came in the end to very little. bye contrast, in the south, this resulted by the 1890's and extensive disfranchise as is well-known.

in 1878, george spencer, a white republican senator from alabama by a number in other words he was a carpet bagger argued the permanent commission for of government in the capitol threatened, quote, the franchise of the poor man throughout the united states whenever his race, color, nationality or creed, and even forecasts the abolishment of an elected government altogether. so in other words, at the time the commission form was being implemented, people could see that this was kind of an extreme part of a larger impulse whether they agree with it or disagree with it was a sort of canary in the coal mine. the constitution federalists' order prohibited congress most of the time from acting directly on the residence of the state, the district of columbia was different. this could be maddening for the residents of the capitol and in fact it still list, but it makes for interesting and provocative history how the nation's most

powerful lawmakers and president, too as it turned out, the policy how they wanted to make policy when there was virtually nothing in the constitution to restrain their power. now let me shift gears and talk about the debate over equality. my hope is that this book also sets out a framework for the study of the civil war i era by directing attention to a surprisingly neglected topic, the struggle for equality. in recent decades, historians of emancipation have made the concept of freedom their principal analytical category. now come to be sure, after slavery the question of the freedoms meaning particularly as it related to the organization of labor was crucial. yet slavery's evolution also inaugurated a debate over the future of equality in america. in this book i start with the premise to understand what was going on in the 19th century we need to move beyond the familiar idea people were either for or

against equality. instead i described the struggle for equality, the completing -- excuse me, competing visions of equality and inequality in by investigate who favored which kinds of the quality and which places and for what reasons. i try to untangle the problem of what contemporary is meant when they talked about civil political and social equality. in 1858, for example, abraham lincoln said he had, quote, no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black racist. in a speech in peoria four years later lincoln said his, quote, own feeling did not admit making former slaves, quote, politically or socially unequal. yet lincoln also consistently argued for certain kinds of racial equality. as he said in columbus ohio, in

1859, quote, there's no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the declaration of independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. how are we to understand these contradictory ways of talking about the quality? and what happened to them once the question of black equality was no longer theoretical as it was before the war but practical after emancipation. answer in the questions became one of the central goals of my research. republicans and putting lincoln every civil equality and equal treatment by law and implicitly security and property and they believe all people should have this formal equality before the law. most distinguish between this kind of equality and a political equal the which refer to the right to vote and usually to

hold often. moderate republicans including one can tend to support civil equality but not political equality for african-americans. here is where the start claims came in. some white radical republicans insisted on the expansive vision of the fundamental the quality. one of the familiar to us now but was very unlawful at the time. they argued civil equality should include the vote which was they thought a fundamental civil rights was origins like the origins of other civil rights work in natural law. many also believe the principal of this obliquity require that african-americans must have equal access to public school, and common carriers and the steamers. during the post war whenever radicals push the balance of

racial equality by demanding equal right to vote and hold office or to public schools or public accommodations, opponents charged them with seeking something that just about everyone professes to despise, and that was social equal place of years where the third category of social equality comes in. unlike the terms of a liquid and political equality, social equality has no actual content. instead people use the social equality to describe what they saw as inappropriate government interference in whatever relationship they believe should properly be considered private, matters of personal pace. senator johnson from maryland argued in 1864 that bill law forbidding racial discrimination on washington street cars amounted to the social equal the measure. protection of african-americans life and property, he argued, was acceptable. this is an illusion to natural rights or civil rights in a

narrow sense, but the government shouldn't intervene in matters of, quote, political rights and social enjoyment. he said those matters, political rights and enjoyment had to do it, quote, the preference on our part for the society of those we deem god as equal. in other words, he's putting travel long street cars in the category of personal preferences as opposed to the kind of thing that shouldn't be legislated out. one conservative newspaper even insisted congress shouldn't enfranchised black man in the capitol because the vote was, quote, a purely social question. >> so in other words, whenever somebody came across things they didn't like, they called it a matter of social equality and sit to can't do that. now, interestingly, this dynamic put african-american activists in an interesting position. their response to the arguments for example when they said we should be allowed to ride the

streetcar is on a level of equality with equal access or we want access to the public schools equally with white children they argued that had nothing to do with social equality, they were merely seeking a broad vision, more expansive vision of the quality before the law, and the people who oppose them or the people who disagreed with them. so, okay, so the overall sort of picture is that the argument people are having is an argument over the content of the categories. we can't take for granted in the case of abraham lincoln or in the case of any of the people who followed him that it was clear what the content of the three categories political, social equality was but rather what was animating the debate was the debate about what actually belonged in each of those categories.

struggles to define the concept of equality before the law pivoted on the contested question of where the social or private domain stopped and where civil or public life began. see in the struggle for equality in this way helps explain why opening white schools to black children was more politically contentious than opening fancy restaurants and theaters to black patrons. helps us understand how white republicans in the early 1870's could argue for racial equality while at the same time opposing independent black political organizations. and the discourse of social equality which became the key justification for racial segregation what went to the 20th century. it is clear even on the most superficial assessment that there's something very complicated about the country's relationship to the quality. we have repeatedly declared all men are created equal but it

goes without saying determining what that statement means and what its implications are if any of policy has been one of the central dillinger is an american public life. why do we tolerate certain kinds of inequality but not others? what are the possibilities and limitations to creating a more just society? as a historian i don't think we can understand these questions about the present without reflecting on the past. my hope is that in addition to telling the story of the nation's capital in a pivotal period the book offers a piece in the larger puzzle of assessing the history of the quality and inequality in the united states. thanks. [applause] >> happy to take any questions or hear comments. >> i'm going to be organized beginning with turning on the microphone.

and if you have a question, please, raise your hand, and i will repeat that so everyone can pick that up on tape. yes. >> [inaudible] -- the comparison between antebellum washington versus washington the civil war reconstruction. >> short, what kind of terms would you like me to compare it? >> [inaudible] -- where they were at that time [inaudible] >> well, let's see, the city grew dramatically during the war comes of the black population

tripled and white population grew very dramatically. so, because as the federal government grew, the government needed to perform all these functions that they never performed before, and so all kinds of new clerks and government at a shays are moving into the cab will during the civil war just as lots and lots of fugitives are coming in, too, so the capitol was kind of growing by leaps and bounds in terms of populations. washington -- the kind of stereotype of washington before the war that it was a kind of sleepy backwater -- it's true that many of the kind of mean streets -- very few of the mean streets or in any way page, pennsylvania avenue is one of the few that had any kind of sort of payment or finished -- finishing some people complain about the dust and the mud, and so that actually the sort of occupation that happens during

the civil war met only exacerbates the conditions of the streets and so part of what's coming on the favor of urban development in the period after the war is that the city was never particularly well developed in terms of grading and paving and then the civil war didn't help any in that respect. so the other thing i would say since the work is so preoccupied with questions of government is that beginning so washington had its own city council and mayor from the early 19th century, from the first decade of the 19th century, georgetown had a separate mayor and city council and the rest of the district of columbia was called the county government separately, and so, are originally the people who could vote for the local offices in washington city were a white man with a certain qualifications. in 1840 the qualifications were dropped so from 1848 until 1867

the voters in the capitol city were what were all white men and so all white men could vote and then black men and women couldn't vote so that also gives you and the city government was usually in the hands of the economic elite and business elite and so one of dramatic changes is when you have african-american man right to vote it really reshapes the electorate and allows people with different priorities to come into office locally and that is a part of the reason why a coalition develops to kind of an see the government. >> [inaudible] why did it take so long? >> that is a terrific question

and it's a complicated set of reasons why some washingtonians were not too unhappy with the commission for of government. one of the things the commission form of government made possible was it made possible that people with connections and in particular people with real estate connections had the ear of the commissioners and so if you were of a certain class and a washington resident you didn't mind that there wasn't local self-government, because you could get things done you wanted to get done through the kind of back channels were talking directly to the commissioners and their staff. so there was a certain amount of fear on the part of some white washingtonians that local home rule would mean a significant population of african-americans again, like in the reconstruction being able to

reshape or shape the city government. particularly in the house of representatives the committee on the district of columbia for the march of the 20th century was dominated and shared by a out right segregationists from the south. to the extent anything could have happened, any reforms could have been done by congress, congressman used d.c. to make a point about what their politics were and kind of bill after bill to reform the government and give people more control on the d.c. committee of the house of representatives. so things start to loosen up in the 1950's and very much the relationship between the kind of flowering of the civil rights movement in the 1960's and opening up of possibilities for home rule in d.c..

petraeus bixby to a very important role for the redemption of the state in the confederacy during the reconstruction. did the violence play a similar role. >> does violence play a role in the redemption of washington city? >> no, that's an interesting question, and no, there was not -- there were periodic -- welcome the answer is no. there were episodes of racial violence but actually they didn't connect to the redemption that i'm talking about, the kind of changing form of government. one of the things i want to highlight by talking about washington's redemption in those terms is that redemption and the states of the former confederacy were not always violent either. that in some places our kind of vision at least i think right now have the vision of making

the kind of rampant and organized plan and a democratic party combined collision and violent campaign to overthrow the government and that sort of was the case but in any other space particularly in the borders of particularly in places like virginia, not that there was and violence in virginia but in terms of politics, redemption happened much sooner in virginia in fact there almost was no construction of all and have been almost through political channels. so, i think the same or similar could be said with respect to tennessee, but more to the point is lot of similar rhetoric about good government also characterizes the kind of period of redemption in other states and so, what i think is interesting to think about is it draws our attention to the

political rather than the kind of violent but to the political machination many kind of of the more respectable but still an entire republican southerners went through to take back their states from the republicans. >> yes, sir? >> one of the most widely criticized episodes in 1862 would you share with the audience that episode? >> sure. i would be happy to. thank you. so, in the course of -- the question was -- sorry -- i've done some research on lincoln's meetings, the famous meeting he had in 1862 with a delegation of the five black men from washington, and part of what got me interested in getting to the bottom of this was that usually

the story is told that the five men lincoln met with were released from slavery, men who would be politically viable, he could get his proposal that they were going to take their people and go colonize abroad and they would supposedly safe sure, whatever you say because you're the president of the united states, and so there are reasons why historians fault that actually one person edward thomas was known to be of a recently emancipated person but otherwise the four other ones were, so the more i did research on the actual people who were living in washington and i kept coming across -- i knew the names of the five men who met with clinton and i kept finding them and other places, too, they were leaders of the 15th street presbyterian church, the most elite black church in washington, employees of the federal government who had connections to the white house or to congress, they were

teachers come a couple of them, they were active, they were black masons, freemasons, began kind of keeping a running list of all of the ways i could identify these men, and was very clear from a variety of sources they were not obviously released from slavery, they were precisely members of the longstanding community from washington. and so, it got me thinking of a lot of things in the meeting. one of the other mysterious things about the meeting i thought was considering the amount of attention given to that meeting and considering the importance of the issue at the time, the delegation should have given a response to lincoln. like you would have thought after the controversial meeting the delegation would have said okay we've met with president and here's what we think we're going to do, either yes or no. but there was no response. so i was wondering why they never got back to lincoln or why

there was never a prominent editorial saying here's what the delegation is going to say. and so basically i ended up feeling like if i needed to write this story partly to correct the record and to tell the interesting things i found about a debate among the washingtonians, black washingtonians about who should comprise the delegation in the first place, who would get to go to the meeting, what did they represent, what with their position be, and so basically my research on the history of washington as a city led me to uncover some new aspects of the famous story kind of told from the perspective of the delegation. yes? >> [inaudible] people in their movement.

i've read when lincoln got to washington in 1847 that the city's black population were about 70% free, 40% sleeves. you say that in 1860 the city was about 60% free. i know the census was good and the statistics lie, so my question is who was moving into washington in the 1850's among the black population and period white and black is there a way to describe the contradiction of the statistics --

>> who is moving into washington in the 1850's in terms of the african-american population? are moving out? can we offer any explanation to the discrepancy? >> i think there might be a discrepancy in the numbers that chollet doesn't exist. and so i'm not quite sure which one it is. actually, the proportion of enslaved black washingtonians didn't go up between 1846 sorghum between 1850's and 1860's. it didn't go of it either stated the same or went down and so that -- if i'm remembering

correctly, not only that, the proportionate number of african-americans in washington was also going down so by 1860 black washingtonians were the least proportioned of the total population than they had ever been so in other words now the numbers as you said are not necessarily that reliable, the census numbers themselves, the numbers are not there, they are verifiable how accurately they reflect the population, we don't really know. but the census numbers show the relative number of african-americans in washington, d.c. decreased to a meeting 50 and 1816 bible was the reason for that was people just leaving, free black people leaving and going north. so, basically what you have by the eve of the civil war is a population smaller than it's been in the past, then goes back up to one-third during the war

and stays about one-third for the rest of the 19th century. a proportion of the population smaller than it's been in the past and also equally proportionately freed or a little bit more free than it's been in the past. >> [inaudible] do you have an explanation of why? second, what were some of the surprises in your research -- >> why have historians basically ignored this reversal reconstruction in washington and then simply deily to supplement its -- talk about your surprises. >> to use a rehearsal or reversal? >> rehearsal, i'm sorry. >> i wasn't quite sure.

there's a famous book of rehearsals which is about the south carolina experiment which happens during the civil war, and for a while i was thinking about that a lot and thinking that this was another version of the rehearsal for reconstruction and i was trying to come up with a title for my book that could go on that. it probably wouldn't have been a good idea any way. why haven't historians paid attention to the -- in defense of the rehearsal for reconstruction -- it was kind of a very nice little episode, like a isolated nugget of an episode where a bunch of people from the north go to this area occupied in coastal south carolina and they have different perspectives, are economically oriented and some are more kind of a missionary and philanthropic league oriented and it's a great little petrie dish to watch this stuff played out, washington is a little bit more diffuse it seems to me but that doesn't really answer the

question. as i kind of suggested at the beginning of the talk i think people shy away from studying washington in part because of the question, you know, of how strange it is and how anomalous that it's not a real city or -- but it's also anomalous, it's only happened because the unions occupying it a little strip and south carolina land and its south carolina which is an anomalous. so, it doesn't really help us exactly explain why in another anomaly and interesting situation in washington hasn't gotten the same kind of attention. and part of what was to segue to the second part of your question was fun about doing the research was how many interesting stories their work to uncover that didn't seem to have been told before because they're just hasn't been very much research on this. one that comes to mind from the civil war years was a very big debate over the enforcement of

the fugitive slave law in washington. during 1862 including after the emancipation in washington which was april 1862, local officials continue to enforce the fugitive slave law and that particularly slaves freed decoupling from maryland could be caught up in the their owners come to washington and go before the fugitive slave commissioner and insist on them being brought back into slavery, which is kind of amazing because washington was under union control and was also freed, ostensibly free and yet people could be read enslaved and sent back. and one of the things i thought was really interesting to discover was evidence that even though local officials wanted to continue to enforce the fugitive slave law the general public wouldn't allow it and i write about how crowds of african-americans would surround people who were trying to

recapture these fugitives and kind of yell and say you can't do this, this can't be happening, and then would go to the court for the hearings before the fugitive slave commissioner than one reason we know about this is because a was covered in the press, and particularly the abolitionist press which wanted to see this stop, to the to see the fugitive slave renditions of said things like what's become clear the fugitive slave law is no longer enforceable, such a public outcry is raised and clamor against that it can't continue to be enforced and so meanwhile, there is a kind of legal side of the story, too where they are shifting personnel on the court and the court continues to be inclined to enforce the law but then the military officials don't want to see it enforced so there's a whole kind of conflict around the end was a fugitive slave laws and i think it gets

brought -- tightened, number one by the fact there were fugitive slaves in the first place, that kind of force the issue and number two by this kind of popular uprising against the enforcement so that was one of the things i enjoy finding out and figuring out how to write about. there's so many more though, i could go on about the sort of wonderful fun anecdotes i got to tell in this book. >> this is going to be the last question. yes, sir. >> the sorting out the various places in washington and being a model for the rest of the country if it is going to be the model has had much access to information about how what was going on in washington communicated to the rest of the self, was it commentary by state legislators?

>> how was this information getting -- if washington is an example for all the land how is that getting out to the rest of the land? >> but me give two examples of that. one, from the space press in new york city the world was a major democratic newspaper, and by 1869 in washington it's the sort of apex of the radical reconstruction you have for the first african-american men sitting on juries, seven war in washington and each has at least one african-american council man sitting on the city council and the new york will this eclectic about it and they sort of to a series of articles about the rise of the negro domination in washington, and so they talk about it as washington as an exemplar for all that is bad enough reconstruction and actually not coincidentally or whatever related this is the

summer the 15th amendment -- the 15th amendment is passed in the winter of 1869 so during the summer is when it offers ratification to the states and so, the 15th amendment is the amendment that said nobody can be prohibited in the states from voting on account of recent previous condition and so northern states particularly the democrats were saying they had to ratify the was a poster ratify and so the new york world is saying to what extent of what happens when we allow african-american men to vote look at washington and they're saying that it's a negative example. so that is one very sort of a clear example of how washington had become an example and then again, i will give a had the example -- no, by the end of the century when this disenfranchisement is in full swing, you have the sort of southern propagandists trying to persuade like liberals in the north what they are doing and

disfranchising african-americans is good and appropriate and northerners shouldn't be concerned about it and those folks also cite washington because it was actually during the republican congress that washington, d.c. was disfranchised and so they talk about washington as a model for what they are doing and kind of say look the republicans in 1874, 1878 felt this was fine but when you go along with all your doing now, but on the positive side and slightly more positive, what i see as a more positive note, washington also becomes for african-americans and example of a place where some of the best educational institutions in the country, and so hard universities founded in 1867, i think, and the public schools in d.c. although segregated become -- some of the schools become a terrific including preparatory high school's and that leader become don larsen growing out of the period i write about, washington

also becomes an example of educational opportunity and to some extent employment a paternity that's kind of unparalleled elsewhere. >> once again, thank you very much, professor, for sharing your book with us. [applause] it will be available outside to sign on the tables outside the door. >> this event was hosted by the abraham lincoln presidential library and museum in springfield illinois. for more information, visit alplm.org. we are here talking with lindsey blake of the independence institute about the upcoming books they have coming out. >> yes, we've got a number of exciting books coming out. we have two new books that are being read released. we've got "beyond politics,,"

and we are going to be releasing it coming early april, we will be doing some heavy promotion for that. it's a classic book. it's something that all students should read, students interested in learning more about the free market principles and foundations of our democracy and how the principles apply to the current political atmosphere beyond politics is absolute essentials. we just released the new wholley war with bob nelson and he did an event featuring the dichotomy between economic religion and environmental religion. we've got also habeas corpus coming out with anthony gregory who is a new author so we are very excited about that, and we will be investigating new works early in the fall. though we've got some exciting projects on the horizon.

one to look out for next year would be a book that's we are determining the dirty dozen for now but it's going to take a look at the dirtiest dozen failures over the past 100 years. so that should be very interesting. something definitely to keep in mind. >> tell me does the institute have its own press or do they published through someone else? explain how this works. >> we published our own books and also work with outside publishers, so as you see here for some of our books, self published, the institutes publish against crisis and malae upon lessons from the poor, but we've also worked with other publishers including housing america and letting north safety with outside publishers, but we do both. >> thank you very much for your time. >> thaou