it. >> what do you teach at the un yoer dated of virginia? >> twentieth century u.s. cultural histock and the histo of therestcor. south. i work for the history department as well as the american studies program. er> have did you get ato that area of study? >> welman one of my daup ters says, mom, you have the greatest job in the world to read you gsa to watch mcooasts all dmost. your life correctly sunday you can have this jved as well. in all seriousness it really is a wonderful joy to be able to bryend your time, youlainow, ref literature and poetry and watching fil has and listening o ib da ve i have always been profoundly interested in the time the started out more interested in the earlier part, the 1920's and in the 30's and then % ibeog into an interest in the 60's and 70's and haven't

really borne out the centuck the kt. .. >> and the concept of racial identity as well changing over time. that is one example but they about ideas and concepts and categories of having a history.

words that do not mean the same thing across time and space-bar it is interesting. >> this is a book published by oxford. it is her second book how the white >> i have to tell you looking ahead, i may have finished more or less the last part of my book maybe my last book called patriot

history of the modern world i rewrote the first chapter and it is a killer but you have to wait until next year. at any rate i am here to talk about the current book, it "what would the founders say?" i began writing this in the wake of the tea party last year. i noticed a number people were carrying around constitution's, copies of the constitution, federalist papers and books such as that. it struck me that while every american needs to know the documents also you should have some context as to what those documents mean lower what was in the hearts and minds of founders when they wrote those things? words don't mean the same thing over time what they mean at the time when they use terms such as much of

and then after a year-and-a-half ago, for the most part, those are still on our minds. what was the founder sales at about the bailout? the short answer is really have to worry if we can see what they did. 1791 there was a financial panic in new york city and alexander hamilton was secretary of treasury and spent a lot of time in new york and as secretary of treasury has just overseen the creation of the date of the united states hamilton had a tremendous personal interest to make sure that did not unravel the time he got in. why did he do when you have a financial panic and large banking house is about to collapse? he let it collapse.

his name was william duer. you live with the consequences. quietly behind the scenes so that duer actions would not spread to everybody else, hamilton urged the bank of united states, which despite its names was 4/5 private, he urged them to lend were necessary but not ordered to in the name of the government but said i would appreciate it if you see banks in trouble if you can help them out that is a quick and dirty and serve but there is more to it. you have the founders primary concern, number one was with a number number -- security. what would they say about a

company was of lockheed martin? i am based on the opinion how they acted, they be bridgeable would have favored a lock out the -- bailout because it supplied with the top fighter jets and reconnaissance airplanes. you could make an argument it was the bailout of chrysler back in 1980 is bought nine -- not today. what is the lead difference? chrysler made tanks. they were the only take manufacturing and it is interesting when chrysler comes out of debt to repay the government loan to come back to help, the main -- maim way they do that is selling off the tank division than putting the money back into the company. you can make the argument that there are instances where the founders would support bailouts but strictly limited to anything that has to do with national

defense and national security. this is a no-brainer. now one of the founder supported have the levels of debt and i include hamilton what would the founders say and it gets a bad rap from most conservatives, i don't think hamilton ever intended to have a dead from this magnitude. in his arguments to set up funding and assumption, what he argued is the u.s. needed good credit. not a lot of debt as any parent knows you give your kid a credit card that has a small limit the goal is to have the kid go out and use it and learn to pay off their debts by dealing with small amounts of credit before they have large

amounts. this is what hamilton had in mind for hour he was not a dumb longer not many conservatives as tried to portray. quite the contrary hamilton sets up the thinking find and that is the early american equivalent of the american express card debt instead congress you have to pay after old that before you can generate new debt. how long does it take congress when it was the first in a debt we just keep raising your levitt and raising year limit and raising your loan and the federal government and like you with your visa card, you do reach a limit that the federal government never does. they always have to take

under the debt and to pay it off. he wanted to make sure foreign states that we can get in times of war but it is strange, hamilton and jefferson greatly agreed government had to be closely watched for tierney but the differences jefferson feared a tyranny of the leads the hamilton of fear -- feared the majority that people would get hold of the public treasury. but then new-line to the wealthy dallas of they would not be beholden to the government so they would come to the aid of government. so if they get in trouble the rich would. but then you get a panic that threatens to totally destroy the united states. we're bankrupt and president

grover cleveland the last good democrat that believes in following the constitution as far as i can tell, who shows up? and jpmorgan. the most wealthy banker was powerful in the country and gives a loan of $480 million in the cold. in other words, , back in the day the private sector bailed out the government and the bank bailed out the government. not vice versa. none of them wanted it to the extent we have today and i think he would be appalled where we are today. a couple of other topics. what about the environment? this is our the founders did not have a lot of environmental problems as we would define them.

you have to read between the lines with other issues. you can learn what they would say to the environment of their treatment of land. what was their policy? but they thought every person should only and. although it was felt from 1785 was of the view that you needed to get land out of the hands of government which was the major landholder back then into private individuals. 1785 congress based on jefferson's writings, set up a system they mark the northwest territory they were survey then sold off that dirt cheap prices and the idea was out of the

hands of the government because people will make a better choices as how to protect the land and the environment and moreover, the government should not be a landowner. in europe, when you have keenness that own a lot of land they tell people what to do. there are a couple of people that had -- a couple of things to go with the land ownership. you could not just toward land and sits on that like your pmi and barren. there is a number of interesting laws that come to the fact. one were squatters' rights. if you could find land and set on it over seven years and not get kicked off that is purely and even if it is on land that belongs to someone else. they don't take you off in seven years you can claim some of the land.

what is that reasoning? you should not fence off of bunch of land in texas to say i own all of this then never allowed to visit or develop your land, they wanted to prevent that. saul they make sure that you police your remand and develop it or you might lose some of it. also with enhancing development was the notion of property taxes. i hate those as much as anybody but there is the reason and not to fund public schools. the reason is to make sure if you have got land you are doing something with it. it is not sitting empty were vacant they wanted the land to be used all the time for the good of your fellow man. the most interesting thing of the land use is getting

into the hands of the people through jefferson's influence passing the northwest ordinance. it happens before the constitution what is the northwest ordinance do? when you get people out in this land use up a system whereby those colonists become citizens. they want to make sure what happened when the american colonies in england doesn't happen a second time with the colonies in indiana and ohio. so the tanned man ownership they make citizens out of people. pretty amazing. again they would be appalled the day at the notion the largest landholder in the united states is uncle sam. certainly jefferson would say whether you doing?

we need to move this into the hands of individual people washington says you are a survey your would you mind tomorrow and washington says i would be happy. what would the founder say about guns? that is the case where you absolutely have to have a context of what is meant by the phrase in the constitution in. what is a well regulated militia? does that mean they know how to drill? the word is militia. what if you look under english law, the background you learned it has several functions. it is the elite militia training all the time than a more general militia they call if they are invaded.

it is intended to do two things. help against invaders it also nephews in the context of arming people to protect themselves against domination or criminals. never. it is using context of helping to protect the nation against invaders of called up against the government and later if the government gets to be oppressive four tyrannical the militia but it should serve as a counterbalance to the standing army. the colonial people have a tremendous fear of a standing army because they were the way that governments were monarch's would impose their will on the people. it was always assumed demolition would act as a counterweight and all militias and armed combined by the colony's would equal

the wake of the king's army. a very interesting case study, a washington fought with the militia. they are not very well tranche to theron at a drop of attack? the only fight well when they're on home ground then they fight like tigers but it is difficult to get to the militia to fight. almost never happens. washington spends a great deal of this time to turn alicia into regular soldiers and there is a line in the movie patriot with mel gibson and he's ledger look at the battle going on out there and says that damfool spends too much time in the british army going toe to toe with the red coats that is exactly what washington

needed the army to do. that is what he developed the continental army to do. to go toe to toe in the biggest victories we have are that. the bluecoats and redcoats going toe to toe and they wind. washington had the lowest paid a fair, he does counsel for a small standing army to turn down and reduces the size than jefferson does too strange things first-come he recommends creating a military academy at west point to train professional officers. the other thing that is out of character for jefferson is extends the u.s. navy and marines% on their first overseas lowered war. it could be called the first war on terror.

he sends them over to fight the burberry pirates without a declaration of war on a joint resolution of congress and jefferson declares war on all of the barbary states even though only one, tripoli had declared war on us by cutting down the flag pole. but algeria had not neither had morocco but very much the bush doctrine says you are with us or against us. if you are with tripoli than you are against us. it takes a while but eventually they do. let's move on to banking. what with the founders say? we know what hamilton does come he creates a bank of the united states.

i don't believe the founders interpreted the right to coin money in the constitution as strictly been gold and silver coins. they interpreted broadly, there was plenty of paper money and i think that is how they interpreted paper money to give the bank of the nine states the authority to issue notes. if any private bank issue money back in the early 1800's if you were a bank you could print your own money. that would be cool today but it had to be backed by gold silver but the adr was the bank of the united states which was created by the federal government should compete with all other idea that anybody can print their own money it should be backed by gold or silver.

if forced the federal government to be honest and discipline itself to issue these things from the united states. finally, the issue of religion, what would the founders say? the greatest room for interpretation. the reason is context. if you read the constitution and jefferson's letter coming out of context, you think they met for government to have no role whatsoever strict separation of church and state. not in the constitution and jefferson was not even here. but nevertheless it is the phrase. what do they mean by that? what they meant was in the context of christian

religion, all of these men wear christian. the only one i can find that was remotely diaz was definitely not jefferson. he urged others to pray repeatedly. george washington and dsm has been blown out of the water by recent books and we even have a diary entry of a prayer that he wrote in which he signs the prior off to my lord jesus christ the savior of my soul or words to that effect. clearly is not a diaz. how much of a practicing christian depends if you think their church attendance is be all and end all but he did attend church quite a lot. what to these guys mean when they talk about the freedom of religion? based on what i have seen in the documents, all of the colonial charters with

references to god and jesus christ, many state legislatures zero allegiance handle state legislatures had to swear such a know they find a hard to believe in the context of the mall being christian. what would they say if the muslim often to say because of separation of church and state you have to fund the muslim bloodbath they would find that ludacris will reduce say about what you have to remove any space such as a part? they would find that silly but it is in the context for you and i get that directly from the words but into the state constitution and the letters in these private lives.

some like hamilton went through phrases he was very religious as a young man and one colleague says how much she prayed constantly but in middle age she comes away from that and not only older age but closer to his death the gravitates back toward god. you'll find all of these different points of their lives are extremely religious and they wrote to the phrase is a new constitution, the other documents, they assume everything would be handled in the context of a christian, mostly protestant nation per car like to use the example of the fed system. it does not mention gold one's. but yet to everybody assumes once it is said that would be set up on a gold standard it was so widely assume nobody point* gold and the

word -- and the federal reserve and that is how operated but in the connecticut 1643 there is a statute that requires you to bring your musket to church. i think i will stop with that to take questions. if you don't mind, please speak into the microphone. i will repeat the question if we cannot hear. it is such a big group. >> talking about bailouts at work today, we were discussing how does that work like california who was almost bankrupt how does a stay get bailed out?

does that ever happened? >> never before in american history. i suppose if you want to stretch it, you could argue in the revolution because so many states had big debts and hamilton's plan was called assumption, we will assume all of the dates here is the difference they assume it one time and paid them off. they did as a california you are in trouble be will help you but not arizona, idaho but not rhode island. it was a onetime thing and i can see nothing that says they would ever do that again. >> what do think is the government's role of education? they have taken a control over education.

>> i did not mention that very much. this surprised me. i come up mostly educated in public schools but i taught in a private school, a university of dayton and almost all of my college career and my heart is a private school and home schoolers figure the founders will be with me but all in favor of public education and favor that through grades one through six paid for buy the taxpayers. the difference is that they favor the state and local tax payers, not the federal government. the federal government would have no role with public education. here is the kicker before the union's start popping champagne, here is the second part, what were they to teach? mostly by benjamin rush, the yearly father of american

education, all of them believe what should be taught was math, a grammar, english, a history history, what kind of history? unpatriotic history burst . and they were very explicit about this for you don't just teach all nations are equal and i am paraphrasing. all nations are fine but we are special. you need to show why. they all believed in a patriotic history and lastly, they all believe you should teach religion in the public schools because they all assumed that unless a member virtuous, but you could not have a good republic. while they believe in public-school is is to do what? patriotic history math.

when you use the term religion, talk about spirituality with respect to a denomination in. what were they getting out of it? pmi specifically the nomination in. within the christian church, i cannot emphasize too much they were all christians and what they feared is the anglicans would get in charge of the church in virginia and exclude the baptist or they would exclude the catholics. what they ever dreamed is hindus or muslims would say you must treat my religion the same as the christian religion. denominations were equal within christianity but they did not envision having to share that with others religions. >> what do suppose they

would think today being subjected to that tsa? [laughter] >> probably they would find a washington musket packed away. it would be an outrageous. there is a story about washington you probably heard this. hall he was a very unemotional may be only cried publicly once or twice or ones that they can document. on one occasion at a dinner party somebody made a bet i bet you cannot walk up to washington and a slap him on the back. how are you doing? washington turned and gave him such an icy cold stare he backed away and no one ever touched washington again. what do you think he would

do with said tsa agent groping his generals? [laughter] he would pull out a pistol and say me to my little friend. >> when you talk about the environment and the government being the biggest landholder i would imagine the largest is with national parks? were the patriots against holding land for the common use of everyone? >> if it gets to that point* individuals cannot get the land come it was to be moved into the hands of the individuals. how did the national parks come about? in the late 1800's when a rancher start asking for the land to be set apart for grazing. i don't blame the ranchers. they want the taxpayers to allow them to have their

cattle to go out to graze the land freely at taxpayer expense. the government goes along with that but then gravitates we let you use this land now all of a sudden the individual farmer cannot go out to stick off the land that was government land. would they be in favor of national parks? maybe one or two but scene where it has gone today, the vast majority of alaska is federal land. the vast majority of utah is federal land and would not be in favor of that at all but it is is to get rid of most of that. imf the opinion if you live the park get some friends and call-up park above is levander bill used to do. if you one to zero park, a coke 31. nobody stops you. but today the federal government stops you.

>> what would you say to or three problems facing our country today that is a major problem how our founding fathers would do it differently than what we have now? >> the number one problem is the debt. that it at all levels is starting to impinge everything we do. did you see how much you pay for gas this week or food? all of this is a result of too much debt working its way to the monetize system. the saudis don't trust our money they had discussions about going to gold as the international reserve currency. there was a state introduced a bill to have transactions be payable and gold. that tells you we are long way from having the dollar as good as gold and it is

the debt issue eating us up on some levels and partly because of the housing collapse and housing prices are inflated using an s atm machines warehouses going up? because of inflation. the debt issue is the number one issue. there is a terrifying story out there there is 127 planted by al qaeda. i don't believe that it is possible i saw where san diego immigration official who was surprised on camera any weapons of mass destruction income three report? >> our part?

not our report. the way he answered it gave me a cold feeling because he knew it had come to another port to but i can answer the question to make everybody feel good. they would be concerned about national security. had the balance that with said tsa? there are ways to do that. look at israel. they do not grope every single person his it is not 83 year-old white-haired grandmothers. >> how do think our founders would handle this as they were in charge? totally restructuring the debt issue. there is a pretty good play

and to refinance old debt then to start paying it off at lower rates. you have to begin to pay off the debt. and to cut entitlements. under fdr there 14 people paying into social security for everyone taking out but today there is three people paying for every one of my mother and by the time my students are back there to take social security out, there is one person paying for every three trying to take out. the numbers don't work. you have to get to the entitlements the social security and medicare and they have no problem to say social security is unconstitutional and greatly pare down the system.

>> would you think they would say about our professional politicians? >> this would make them six. do you know, with john adams did in the first chapter of the introduction and when he loses the election to thomas jefferson, he cannot wait to get out of washington. in a carriage on his way home before jefferson even takes the oath of office. to show how professionally he wanted to be around politicians. but to be as it is and legislator to vote to but you have to hang around with other people whose sole job is to give away many then you start conniving better

ways than taxpayer money. i was in washington not to landau somebody brought up the point* what does washington make? hollywood is known for movies to try it was known for cars silicon valley known for microchips orlando is known for disney world what does d.c. make? >> influence in giving away taxpayer dollars. the other reason they have you get out of town is to get back to hang out with your peeps. you hang out with average people so you know, how much a gallon of milk cost and what a home mortgages like. so you see them every day and know the problems but not until you see the exorbitance salaries been to buy a chauffeurs flying on private planes going to the finest dinner parties it

cannot we too bad out there. excuse me? i don't mean the in a cloistered town meeting for your followers, an open meeting where people can shut you down see how many like you then? it would we totally opposed to what we have today. >> talk about national security, at the time would one say the loyalist is a threat to our national security? but infiltrated in the administration but today, that infiltration, it is jihadist islamist. >> what would the founders do to deal with the threat like the loyalist? >> they were pretty harsh.

if you remember they burn the loyalist house this and drove a lot of them out of new york, where they could get control of, but when adams is in power they passed the alien sedition act and try to stamp out criticism of the president. but that goes too far and struck down but nevertheless that is what they were thinking. the issue of the revolution is more like this. one-third of the people called loyalist you want to stay with the king. and one-third who don't give a crap. they want to be left alone and you cannot be left alone and you have to choose sides. airways like the famous line as manager and this applies

to iraq for afghanistan his job as manager is to make sure the one-third of the players who hated him stayed away from the one-third who did not care. that is where we are in iraq if we can keep the tender to do% to hate us then we may be all right. >> the threat today? jefferson went over without a declaration of war to hammer the barbary point* -- pilates. >> you can identify they would not hesitate to hang traders and to use the term suspected british agents he does not wait for a trial. he hangs one and shoots the other. of the word gets out in a message dander jackson broke

i was thought is in the sheehan was a round he would have turned over and spent her. >> and lightyear responds earlier to the entitlements like social security and medicare, in what context when they have used the phrase to promote the general welfare if not to support social security and medicare? >> great question. this is used so many times by liberals. we have to promote general welfare. we can find out what they mean by the preamble if you look at what they empower the government to do within that document that follows. for example, to provide for common defense went to the layout?

create an army and navy congress can declare for chile all these different things the government is empowered to do. what do they lay out in regard to the general welfare? coin money. contracts. patents copyrights. it turns out all of the things that they list to provide the general welfare is business related things to have us prosper because of the flat in stable playing field and people know the rules and they will be secure in the fruits of their labor. never once suggested there is anything such as welfare. in england they were poorhouses to general accepted view is there are two types of for the deserving poor and undeserving that is those who could work and would if given a chance but the

undeserving for those who would not work even if they had the opportunity. i am reminded of a guy i saw an las vegas walking between energy and anthony york new york. they have some baker's out there that has the sign like the vietnam veteran but then god love him that sign says why lie? i like to drink. he got more money than anybody else. with the general welfare clause you find things that provide for everybody's welfare contract, cleaning and making sure it is sound sound, you don't see any references civic much of the

expansion of power since the third day's is under the interstate commerce clause. what use of that clause, how was it used the 1940's? >> interstate commerce skyrockets after 1887 with the interstate commerce act and that more than anything was designed to control railroads because they run between states. that is legitimate. that is a waterway but then they start to get carried away that there is a grain elevator sense that runs between the states that also means that they're arguing that a farmer in california who planted a crop on his own land in california does not sell august day and a

core role seat, not the core of the roosevelt administration he is engaged with interstate trade because even if the cells inside state if it affects others outside the states with that rationale there is no activity that cannot be regulated by government because anything you do here will affect bookstores and other states purdue by late interstate trade for about it is outrageous. don't get me started on trust and antitrust. it is impossible to come up with a reasonable level logical way to approach this. is to undercut preissing you're guilty of predatory pricing if it is too high then you're guilty of price gouging and if it is price the same then you are guilty of collusion. what you do? that should do it. if everybody is happy i will

sign books. thank you very much for coming out tonight on this cold and blustery night. thank you. [applause] >> we have the author of courage to defend. what is the importance of atlantic in the civil-rights movement? >> atlanta has not been discussed very often it is a home to many several civil rights organizations and what i want to explore is i thought it would be a success story is usually considered of interest only because it is the interest or the home of margin mr. king, jr. but i want to

explore because it is home to a sizable african-american middle-class. and i thought and part because the fathers always considered it a place of racial moderation it would be a good place from which to explore the dynamics of the civil-rights movement. >> host: was a success story? >> guest: in the some ways including many members of the black in a class who came of age after the legislation of the 1960's. the story that i tell in my book is more complicated and shows for many african-americans in atlanta of, a city that is one would think would be the perfect place to tell stories about

civil-rights success, there is a lot of failure and including a group of african-american women and the third part of the book, not only to challenge the whites but the black leadership to say they have been left out. >> host: when you use the word descent, who is dissenting? >> i talk about three ways ways-- three waves of dissenters at three different historical moments but the first wave of dissenters are the people who are members of the african american middle-class interested in challenging jim-crow out giving the social and economic capital but the black middle-class had been able to achieve under jim crow.

so this man they're interested in preserving their economic status and educational equality but not so much as scolding because that would mean that black teachers may lose their jobs. >> host: was there a fear by the black middle class statements lose what they had? >> absolutely. to some extent it who was well-founded fear coalesced one-third of my book that explores the dissenters that i talk about as welfare rights activist, i discuss how the black middle class pushes back against segregation because of employment discrimination

against black teachers or principals. >> host: what is the relationship between third marshall and martin luther king, jr.? >> it was complicated and a story that i tell in the middle third of my book those who represented them. it turns out thurgood marshall was not enamored with student protesters and told students they should not engaged in to protest they would get people killed and invading the property of whites and is very negative and leaving he had inspired the students to go into the

streets because of the leadership of the boycott from 1955. >> host: are you surprised at the civil-rights movement looking at to monolithic were you surprised at lovell's of disagreement within the civil-rights movement? >> i was. that is the most surprising thing that i found. how much we don't know about the movement although many books have been written about the civil-rights era. there was some at -- so much conflict whether to desegregate schools, how much emphasis of voting rights are whether to desegregate housing or engage in a street protest

these are points of contexts because they want to tell stories that are simple with american progress and those stories have turned over brown vs. board of education experts last to go back of the 1930's and 40's and not to stop that those conventional points of the story. >> host: professor, if you had to pick a date that the civil-rights movement started what is that date? >> [laughter] historians these days are very skeptical of picking a

starting point* for the civil-rights movement but i can tell you that my book begins in the 1940's as a postwar era after world war ii was said jumping off point* including such a got -- conflict with democracy abroad and the state in which african-americans found themselves with jim crow not consistent with democracy. i talk about the 1940's as the jumping off point* islamic published by oxford, what about the cover? >> i love these photographs. the first is the hoof was the first african american lawyers who is little known

today but what i show him doing is challenging the white primary that excluded african-americans from voting in bed democratic primary in georgia and throughout the south. he is here trying to vote. 1944. as you can see there are people gathered around looking at the history of atlanta and it is to the 1970's where i show a woman who was the leader of the national welfare rights organization who was a strong dissenter but what

she is saying is that the civil rights movement has not worked equally as well and then demanding integrated schools and affordable housing so with the nuances of the book. >> is ethel still alive? him she died 2005. >> could you chat with her children or relatives? >> i did not chat with her relatives by had extensive interviews with her which was just a joy 87 you did? you have been working on this book for several years? >> it represents one decade of work. i started as a dissertation. time worked on in many years and the result is a 500

pager dissertation. [laughter] in talking with of the matthews, what was she like 40 years later? >> she was a remarkably strong woman and very passionate and very clear in her cents that politicians of all the ideological stripe were not attentive enough and that is when she said to be in no uncertain terms. she opened up to me more than anyone else i interviewed and i had about

34 the book that the civil-rights movement was much more complicated than even the stories i have learned from back-to-school or law school. >> host: if someone said the civil-rights movement was a middle-class movement what is your response? >> i would say it is an apt description in many ways in terms of impact. i don't think leaders of the civil-rights movement by thurgood marshall certainly not dr. king or others they intended for civil-rights legislation for litigation there is a wider impact of

lower a number of reasons it did end up to members of the middle class. those where the people who were in a position to take advantage of the opening up of the workplace to african americans and opening of schools but for those like ethel matthews who was a child of alabama sharecroppers who was not very well educated come a very smart but not very well educated come it was a harder thing to do do to try to interview for jobs and be successful even after employment discrimination and legislation was enacted. i talk about those things in the book and why it so