list of 14 different engines which have been used on a plethora of different vehicle's in stages. it's over 50 some years of space history it would be happy to submit that for the record but it's not so horribly difficult to engine the vehicle as some of our earlier witnesses were saying. >> i will submit that for the record i just simply don't believe it to be difficult. >> before i go to the ranking number, general i want to go back to the specific language you wrote down when blue blue origin said they would be ready to fly by 2019 how did you interpret that?

>> it would be ready in the certification flight test program in 2019. it takes a year or two to get from a very first flight of an engine so that was interesting to me because -- >> it was a similar thing except basically the end of 2019 the time debate co. would be ready and they didn't say ready to fly under the rocket base at the ready by the end of 2019. >> to having completed the certification? >> in either case you are talking about either the engine, not the system. >> and that's what i heard they do at the ready in 2019. but i think it's important to point out that both of the technologies have significant challenges but they are going to have to work through. i believe they can progressively

get through those methane is a member they talked about as a new and ever giving up 250,000 pounds and across the border hasn't been done yet so there are technical risks in either activity. >> ima budget hog and i have to bring up the issue with sequestration but that probably is the most important issue that we face not only for this issue but for all the military issues in this committee has conducted yet again. so to put a fine point on it under this we will be borrowing $30 billion from the account but it's not budgeted and increased deficit we will probably be borrowing it from china.

yet none of us have thought of or proposed we would buy the missile from china to meet the gap. we've taken the money from them but we wouldn't consider buying the missile based on the technology. so i hope the members of the committee and of the the congress will solve the sequestration problem something that repeated congresses have failed to do which dramatically injures defense capability. so that is a big issue. within that issue we are focusing on this. i need to ask the witnesses and the chairman this question. a general indicated there has been broad interest. but that is more than the reengineering. so, i would find out to get clarity in the hearing whether

the chairman would be interested just for the new engine. are we buying missile systems were new engine? >> the broad response as well as the service providers so we are assessing that combination. we are on a timeline to select the best. >> but any rfp would delay the process. >> say you've already expressed extreme skepticism on the possibility of getting the replacement by 2019. >> we believe it would delay the process but we also believe that

the current process that we have encompasses both opportunities. so, within that total that we have today, we believe that it's highly likely we will find our way through this. >> and responding to the ranking members questions in a specific language on this, the agreement includes the house provision, which is an amendment that would direct the secretary to develop a rocket propulsion system that is made in the united states is developed no later than 2019 using fully and open competition at the requirements of the space community and is available for purchase by all space launch providers in the united states. we know this provision is not an authorization for the funds and development of the new launch vehicle.

>> that doesn't mean it's going to happen in secret extreme skepticism that could happen. >> i hope you also heard optimism because when you get in the competitive environment and engage the best engineers that we have it's possible to get there in 2019. the point of skepticism that i think you are referring to is talking about the significant challenges in a couple of areas. then we also have the control issue that was talked about in the committee that we have to work through. we are not going to go down that technology path i think in the long term that would be a good technology program to go down as well. there are two competitors. they want to get in.

but this isn't a retail. there are not lots of folks vying for those but that isn't what you're talking about here. this basically at least is due to the market interest is not an interesting business space unless you are a multibillionaire with a big ego. and by the way the missing billionaire from the carbon engine maybe we could find the texas oilman that but interested in funding the hydrocarbon. because he's probably right we need more research in this area. where has it been for decades? to >> we haven't had the backing for it somehow so we are in this right now. it was painting our pay me later and we chose to take the route of buying the relatively

inexpensive recurring engine rather than preserving our own industrial base. at this point it doesn't look like it was the smart alternative and i would suggest we do not repeated. >> i don't want to put words in your mouth but there are some advantages sometimes to the big government. >> they want to turn virtually everything over to the private sector. >> ima free-market conservative and if i thought that the markets were such disappointed as i am as it does for the airline transportation computers, then i would want the government to buy it off the market. my observation is -- i will put it like this. last year they conducted one commercial lawn of something like a dozen national security or other government launches.

that's the ratio of the free market to the national requirements. so i suggest -- i'm urging the committee to consider this item as a national security item first. but for the national security side if we believe it to be so that we must ensure the supply chain and that's everything from the control systems and guidance systems to ground infrastructure to air frames to engines we must ensure that we have taken care that we can get every item that we need. >> i like your argument because we do need a short access. he went a little bit too far if you used the ratio as the appropriate mix. it could be the high cost provider and that's why so much of the business has been taken

but regardless there are certain ones only the government can perform and we need to step up and do that and pay for those. i'm a little bit worried about the aspect of the demanding competition in the performance so you could prevent a lot of qualified vendors from achieving success. the horizon of 67 years is worrisome but now everything is slower in the modern age. so i'm a little bit worried and we saw this a little bit with the last certification at least six months longer than expected

and i want to make sure that all are dotted and crossed sometimes we are not sure where it is lost in the bureaucracy. >> we are 100% focused on expediting as well as ensuring that we have a level playing field. and today three pre- haven't excluded any of the proposed options. and we have a four step process that will drive us to a conclusion and we do have the opportunity if we find that for one or more reasons that one or more of the proposals that we are hearing now will not close on the business case perspective we can essentially essentially go back to step number one which is the technical maturation activity to pursue an engine

development is needed. >> that sounds like such a great answer when you say it expeditiously. that sounds great. but the definition of expeditiously as six to seven years. >> i'm talking about step number two that we are currently assessing between september and december of this year. it's a two-step process. there is a set of proposals that we have now. as you heard they've been working on this issue for quite some time on this and we do not believe that it will take. >> we hope it won't be an exorbitant amount of time that we heard the problems and no one has ever proposed to us reforming the 415.

>> if i could i think that is one of the things that is undermining your question. the air force used was an other than transaction. that's similar to what you see. that is a very important tool that they are using to expedite not only the speed innovation. it's not as prescriptive as we discussed in the earlier one. >> said it is just a little monster. >> i'm sure they will be comforted by that. [laughter] so a central question of fact, they testify they can handle 60% of the national security loads. 60%. okay. in her testimony she said they can do for eight which sounds like 50%. then in his testimony he said two thirds of the payload would be grounded.

so what is it? >> i will answer first. i was privileged to be asked to serve on the committee last year and we surveyed the manifest at that time. two thirds of the individual manifest ron atlas five. that is just a fact. when they talk about lifting 60% of the payloads i'm not arguing that that's not the case with many of the payloads will be repeat versions of the same thing. it doesn't mean that they can left 60% of all spacecraft that the national security community has too be launched.

>> they claim it would even the money of any gap even today. >> i am not a lawyer. >> general, you general, you are, aren't you? >> essar. iab leave the entire discussion revolves around the ability of the united launch alliance to remain competitive in something like a fountain nine. they are asking for the time transition between where we are today and whatever the system notes. to do that they need a steady stream of revenue to maintain that capability. what they have briefed if it was forced to put in to be cost competitive and most likely would end when.

without that assurance of the steady stream of revenue it would be hard to receive the capital investment they need to make that transition. so it isn't in our opinion a matter of whether or not the delta four can meet the requirements or we can force them to stay. i think it's a matter of whether or not they will remain in the transition in the competitive item. >> so we could make it happen if we paid them to make it happen. >> yes sir. >> the final point would be i'm worried worried overall that the short tenure of the general ships doesn't meet these multi-year national security capabilities. so many of the personnel and leaders of the companies are about retired.

it his punching the ticket on your command. we are on the receiving end of the 20 year problem here and i wonder where those folks are. >> i understand the argument congressman, i do but it may be an anomaly but i will just point out. working this issue as the space acquisition person under the acquisition chain for two years and the vice commander now. so i have been focused on this area for over five years now and this is essentially important to me personally to make sure that we get this done correctly because i don't want to be the

problem for the people that come after me because i understand i have a finite amount of time left in the service now and i want to make sure we get it right so the folks that come after me don't have to worry about this problem. >> you are a you're a good man in five years on the problem is a good amount of time. that pales in comparison to the tenure with the nuclear. >> i understand the argument. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> the point the ranking member made and what i completely agree with is the frustration that is so complex we have the short tenure and it would be awful nice if we could make those. the general man is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. since the issue of a suppressed or came up i will take an opportunity to share what i think a lot of us on the panel worked on very hard.

every year we reauthorized department of defense and every year we appropriate for the department of defense. we've done that again this year. and we found a way to unwind the sequestered on the defense for the year. some people would argue the color of money isn't right. i would argue that they are correct. i would also argue that the money spent the right way. and also for now we funded the department of defense at the president's budget request. that's what we've done and we worked hard on both sides of the aisle. i've also let people know that when the first debate president pretends to be towed the appropriations after we met his budget request the world is listening to.com that come and

it doesn't help the situation at all. this is an important issue. we need to underline this and i support that. but the reality is every year we reauthorized department of defense every year and appropriate the funds for the department of defense and this meets the same situation. my question is when i heard general talk about the technical maturation, that's step number one come and risk reduction rocket propulsion system investment as a step step number two, launch systems investments as step number three, this sounds an awful lot like the same process doctor griffin went through. and my question for you is why

is it inappropriate now if it was inappropriate than was the program unsuccessful which now we have the commercial supply. it seems like it is at least working. why is this different? >> a major differences in the amount of money involved. in the program as it is taking us back across the two providers and the clear terms of the agreement is that there would be a very significant majority of corporate investment that was the plan at the time. the program did work. we got to launch vehicles out of it. i think it is a very different

thing for the national security launch infrastructure to be told to purchase as a service employee and that there is an open market of providers which the department can buy on the marginal cost basis as if it were an airline ticket. and by the way to be told they have to fund the development of that capability to >> it was the funding of the development. >> so the money matters. we didn't want this skin of the game. if they were going to fund it then we should do that as a prime contract.

i want to read or rate the point i made earlier which is the department of defense will be fully funded and the president needs to sign it into law and i think it is critically important that we not take risks of shutting down the department of defense because the president believes we don't have enough money spent. where the national endowment for the arts. that's not an appropriate thing to do especially given the threats that we face in the world. with that i will yield back. >> mr. kaufman from colorado. >> everyone that appears to be in unanimous agreement in the cost savings and resiliency.

we haven't rationally thought through that process and the timelines in other areas of national defense we should never consider phasing out a capability until we have confidence in the follow-on. they will be ready to fight before phasing out for the phaseout of the one weapon system until i was confident to follow-on. we are ready to phaseout the agent without full confidence that the robust capability is ready to replace it. what is the department doing to ensure there is no gap between the time the atlas is phased out

in the follow-on has become operational? >> congressman i agree with your overall assessment for the first rule you don't let go of the one hand until you have a firm hold on the next hand and i'm concerned we are about to let go of one before we have the firm hold on the next. so, i think it is very important that we logically transition off the capabilities. i think the efforts that the general have come up with to reach out to the industry broadly to come up with a competitive strategy that looks at that to allow them to go as fast as the process will allow them to go has been the right thing to do. if he does everything exactly according to to planning to get the engine by 2019, we still can't let go of the wing.

they've continued to have the transition took over that for that is and i would agree with that request. >> if the supply were cut to less than 14 engines what would be the practical result? >> there's two practical results. number one is that they can no longer be competitive in the competitive market and therefore they decided that they can't compete and we are moving into another monopoly. if they decided that can't be allowed to stand and therefore for the transition to cope we decided to pay the premium and fly of the delta four at a price point that will be significantly higher and pay the difference with the tax payers dollars. >> general, what is the department doing command you

might want to comment on this car too what are they doing to ensure that you are not replacing fossil source provider with a different, quote unquote soul source provider? >> the whole approach is to figure out how to develop the rocket propulsion system that will be available for the capability that we need in the future. we are going down that path so we can have that rocket whether it is the atlas five per stage or the atlas first stage with the other pieces going down that path and with a healthy industrial base certified for the capabilities come as we have the space x. if we can take advantage of all of those systems and that is what our approach is trying to do.

>> spinnaker we have been working with them very very closely. and the rocket propulsion system that is ongoing now as we referred to it, the goal is based on what we gathered from the capabilities across the board to end up with initial candidates and then down to two. so we are ensuring based on that capability in the nation that we will preserve the assured access. >> is there anything you would like to comment on further? >> exactly what the gentleman said. the departments look at this is that here we are. we haven't gotten the intellectual capital currently. in the one-for-one replacement, it's to grow the knowledge immediately under the special type of an acquisition tool if

you would. it has logical steps that would see okay. we can now see what is the most affordable way to get to closure. and that this time i think that is the most prudent approach to doing it. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the general recognizes you for an additional question. >> on the fallen question if i could go down the line starting with you, and it has to do with the question that i was asking are there changes for the upgraded falcon nine and how can it be said that it is certified for the launch or eligible for the competition on? >> they did come in with a statement and indeed they are

working with the air force for the heavy launch. ..changes go through. and the lucky part is we have the person in charge of all of that. >> the airforce assigned be as

the certification official for new entrance. and in part of assessing spacex's capability we are working with them closely. i co-chair meetings every two weeks to discuss the proposal, changes they are envisioning so it is certified in time. we are aware of the changes as part of the upgrade discused in the other panel. we are daily, our teams are organic government team, are working with spacex to fully understand what it will take to accept those changes, whatever they may be as a certified system. this is no different than we have done with ula in the past. in fact last december when we through the rl-10-c which is an

upgraded second-stage engine we went through the effort ahead of time to understand the changes of that engine and what it would do to the system and certify the flight which we did in december and it flew very well. spacecompetition spacex has provideed the changes for the falcon-x 9. >> is testing part of the protocol with spacex? >> as the bases yes. i will use the arrow 10-c. it was qualified as part of the design process and flew it for the first time with a classified mission in december. it depends on the level, the

degree, the amount impact of the changes we are looking at to determine whether or not it would require a reflight or test flight. it is no different than what we have done historically with our launch providers. >> and dr. griffin, would you care to comment? >> i would agree with general reaves with regard to certification of new capability. and i would say the idea we fly a large number of repeated copies of rockets is something that may look true from the outside but truthfully it is rare to go very long in a stream without upgrading or changing something about the rocket. you are in this continual process of evolution and certainly we don't do a non-value added test flight a whole separate test load

because we go to an ro-10c. you would not want to spend that kind of money. when you field a new rocket you will do a couple test fights before you put a valuable pay load on it. there is an informed engineering and program management judgment that has to be applied to determine when you are willing to risk an upgrade without a test flight and when you need a test flight because the risk is so big you don't want to risk the pay load. >> and ms. mcfarland, some people have made unhelpful comments in the public that money from the rd-180 engine's money goes to vladimer putin and the cronies. can you clarify that please? >> congressman, i cannot say where the money goes. the government buys launch services from ula. i can state on may 6, 2014 the court of claims received the

opinion of the united states department of treasury united states department of commerce and united states department of state that the payments did not directly executive order 661 and would inform the case if such determination had to be overturned. from our perspective we did due diligence on this to insure the statements were not factual. >> thank you for your background work and clarification. and i would like to confirm with you or general greaves that roiters reported that quote unquote questionable contracting practices were at play. is that true? >> congressman, no.

we used agencies like the dcaa and they examined the contractor approach and did a couple things. they went through and essentially did a price analysis to assess whether or not the proposed prices were paying were within historical balance. they took a look at r-68 and what it cost to produce that engine verses what we were paying for the russian engines. they correlated this information and there was shift cost value done. in the end, the area 180 is precured and we followed those rules and we dispute the accuracy of that information. >> thank you for the clarification, for being here and for your service to our country.

dr. griffin and ms. mcfarland, thank you for helping the country. >> glad to appreciate the questions. you know i mentioned this earlier, i think the first panel said the house version for 2016 and the subject matter area and senate language is different. this is a question for all of the witnesses. please comment on the impact of the current fy-16 nda senate langage regarding the prohibited use of russian rockets. do we have enough to keep going? does the issue need to be addressed now? >> no it does not. we have in block 1-a competitive launch opportunities that this would not allow us to have two viable competitors for.

>> and follow on is as we go to phase two -- do you-- i conquer with what s she said. i want to get to the period between 18-22 and we have 28 rockets we would launch and no atlas available to compete with the launches and that brings the discussion we had a little while ago about the viability of ula to get through that period. that is an even bigger concern for phase two. >> i want to make sure were the record. you are both saying the nine engines are not enough to make sure assured access to space. >> yes, sir. >> general reaves, you had something to say? >> i conquer. it goes back to the discussion about ula is viable to make the transition between today and

2022. >> and that is important because? >> because they need the steady stream of revenue -- >> i mean in the big picture we need to have two people -- >> yes sir. >> and he would fall down on the goals of making sure we maintain access rate by having two providers. >> may i come in? >> absolutely. >> the two providers comes from my era. in 1986 we lost a in sequence a spate shuttle, tighten, atlas and delta. by the second half of 1986 the united states had no access to space capability at all. from among the many recovery actions takingetaken following the laws loss of the challenger it was determined we would in the expendable arena keep two

independent paths to space for national security purposes. it is presidential policy for several past administrations and it is law. i think all -- although the history is 30 years old now we department at our peril. >> one thing you will hear from the chairman of the senate arms service committee is we can rely on nasa to insure access to space. do you conquer with that statement, ms. mcfarland? >> sir i do not. i am going to be visiting with nasa to see what they have in their vehicles. from what i understand it is a costly way to send up an asset given what we have to do for our mission manifest. >> general hyten? >> nasa uses delta for most of their missions today.

they are working down a couple other paths. but the space launch system the sls system is a giant rocket build for planet exploration but to put satellites up in space. we meet with nasa, airforce and other do is talk about the prep. we have great technology partnership but they do not have a rocket system that would meet ow requirements. >> and i conquer with what has been said before. one additional note is my position also functions as the flight worthiness official for every national security space launch and that set of criteria we used and i signed everyone of the letters, the criteria we news to support missions in space in most cases are somewhat different than what nasa uses because their risk tolerance is

in most cases higher than ours because ours is low-risk. that would be a difference if we were told to go to nasa for these. >> dr. griffin, you used to run nasa. do you think we should rely on them? >> no i don't. nasa relies on the department of defense for the precurement of delta and atlas launch vehicles for their own payloads. the larger rocket the sls, is intended for human exploration of the solar system which i devoutly hope we will resume but to use it for unmanned national security launches is equivalent to using an airplane to transport cargo across the

ocean. it will be overkill. >> what is the cost of your plan? and what is the bases of that estimate? >> chairman we don't have a final estimate. a lot of it depends on the assessment we are doing right now. we do have funding in the 16 pv to address step two and step three of the four step process. but we are looking to see what estimates we get and we will work that in the future budgets. >> dr. griffin, what is your cost on the four-part plan verses the funding of the resisting vehicles and infrastructure? >> as general reaves said i cannot know what the cost of the four-part plan will be. i will offer the opinion that i

very strongly believe the cheapest way for the united states to regain its national security launch independence is to reengine the atlas five. i said that in my testimony for the record. i cannot talk about the procurement process that is ongoing. even though i am not an attorney i know that. but i do hope the outcome of the procurement process results in the decision to reengine the atlas 5. >> ms. mcfarland, what would it cost to off ramp the airforce plan that is focused on developing an engine that complies with the law and doesn't require a new vehicle? >> i think that would be a good question to ask us after we can review what has been proposed from the airforce's solicitation. i think that would be a good question and good product. >> general greaves you stated a

rocket engine to replace the rd-180 on the atlas would most likely be usable for ula's atlas. according to one of the others sued ula to get access to it. that suit was settled in court with another russian engine. isn't it reasonable to conclude the rd-180 would be flying on the atlas if orbital had access to the 180? >> chairman the answer is yes. but i believe i also said without significant modification to the receiving launch system the launch vehicle. so yes, the rd-180 could be transitioned to another launch system. >> general hyten, there are claims industly doesn't need any money to get off rd-180 or the solutions are funded. can we rely on industry to provide the capabilities we need

for the military? in the end, would the government need to pay for requirements? >> no we can't. congressman in my opinion, i think dr. griffin answered this well earlier when she talked about the business case that is out there. if you look at the business case it is national security space launches which means this is national security mission which means we need to be able to fund the critical elements of the industrial base to make sure that is there and that element of the industrial base is not there to support where we need to go in the future. i think it is the responsibility of the department of defense and the government to make sure that industrial base is there for national security. >> thank you, sir. i have many more questions but i will submit them for the record because it is noon and we have warn out our welcome with you. i very much appreciate your time and effort and you have been enormously helpful to us and i look forward to the effort to get on to a new path of

independence. with that this hearing is adjourned. >> tonight, it is booktv in prime time starting at 8 p.m. eastern with authors and books related to the book publishing industry including a panel discussion on innovation and data and an interview with the director of broadside books. until then, a discussion on the causes of the u.s. civil war and how the memory of that conflict is impacting the current debate over the confederate flag. from washington journal this is 40 minutes. >> joining us is author and historian gary galger who is a history professor here to talk about the civil car war and the

confederate flag. let's talk about the history and where it came from and why it looks the way it looks. >> there are several confederate flag and most people are flag with the st. anthony cross that represented robert lee's virginia soldiers. >> what does it represent? >> what does it represent now? >> well -- >> what did it represent then? it represented a new slave hp holding republic and associated with the military forces of that slave-holding republic that were fighting to establish it as part of the western community of nation. >> what has to come to represent? there is a debate because of

what happened in charleston, south carolina that it represents heritage and pride and at the same time people view it as a racism symbol. >> different people have different takes on it. as you mention, often the de desendants of the confederate tries to say that isn't true. but at the time no confederates would have said it was the flag of the united states coming to guarantee the long-term future of the slave-holding society of the southern states. >> who fought on the side of the con federacy and what were they fighting for? what did they say at the time they were fighting for? >> there were about five and a half million white people who lived in the confederacy and

probably five million of them largely supported the confederacy, half a million didn't. about a 100,000 white men fought against the confederate. but there were 8-10,000 men who fought for the confederate cause. they would have said -- they put it different ways. fighting for their way of life fighting for their region, fighting for their new republic. but when you drill down into any those they are fighting for a continuation of the society that developed in the southern states over the 200 years before the civil war broke out which was a slave holding society that included 5.5 million white people and 3.5 million african-american the vast majority who were enslaved. >> after the south lost how did southerns frame the debate about the loss and the flag?

-- southerners -- >> well they didn't talk about the flag a lot after they lost. a number of the flags that came to be controversial later really didn't come into being until the very end of the 19th century and early 20th century in the 1890s and around 1900 alabama, florida and mississippi added a version of the st. anthony cross to their state flags and then george added the st. anthony cross to their battle flag. if was a symbol and if it was displayed at certain events and places sometimes union veterans would get upset and others in the non-slaving states who were loyal during the civil war would get upset. but it wasn't a huge issue going forward. as confederates look back at the war and tried to make sense of

what their failed experiment in nation building had been about many tried to disassociate war and slavery. so after the war you get a different view than what people were saying during the secession crisis and during the war. if you look at the documents of the confederate constitution it is absolutely crystal clear the centrality of slavery. slavery is at the center of what was going on. the long-term viability of slavery was an issue and suscission was an effort to get ahead of that. that is what they would have said at the time. retrospectively they understand slavery was going out in almost all of the western rnern world and remained in spanish cuba and brazil but they were out of step

for the most part so they said slavery wasn't the big deal. >> explain the loss cause and why the confederacy gets roman romanticized. >> there are elements to two. one is the confederacy would have never won the war. that is not how they felt during the war but retrospectively they said the united states just had too much of everything and the confederacy could have never one. but they argued the war was about constitutional principles and federalism verses a growing central state a fight over the founding generation's legacy and they could argue there was no loss of honor in fighting a hopeless war for high

constitutional principles and in fact there is something worthy about that. they talked less about politics and more about the great hero after the war as he was during the war who is robert e lee. they talked about lee and the odds he faced and his brilliant victories without coming to terms with slavely and push it off to the side. they argued all of the slaves were happy and confederates were steadfast and loyal. they created the image of the united white south fighting a battle against a brutal united states. >> we are talking with the author of cost of one forgotten. joining us from individual to talked the debate over the civil war and the confederate flag. here is how we divided the line.

eastern central part of the line 202-748-8000 and south carolina resident residents 202-748-8002. let's go to mike in monroe georgia, independent. you are on the >> caller: i don't know to begin. you speak like someone from the north. >> i am from the west in colorado and california. >> caller: i own this flag but i have never killed anyone over the flag. to say it was the republican south that did this.

this was the democratic south back then. it was the democrats that put it up over the state house in south carolina. i said it was to establish a slave-holding republic. the south was democratic after the war and two parties before the war but largely democratic by 1860. >> caller: and what that fellow done in south carolina is unexcusable and doing it in the name of the flag is very un-excusable but if you notice the two pictures he has of the confederate flag and then he has one picture of him burning the american flag. should dwi

>> guest: they come up about bridges and schools that have been names. they are things that localities can talk about and debate. i don't think the confederate flag my personal view now i don't think the confederate flag should fly over any governmental buildings or institutions. but we have very strong first amendment rights and i think privately the question of free

speech comes into play with the confederate flag. but in public spaces flying over state houses or on state house grounds there i think the confederate flag does not have a place in 2015. i am not in favor of pulling monuments down. i think that is -- i am in favor of interpreting monuments. the civil war is a huge part of our history and the most seismic event in history and it is impossible to understand the rest of the united states's history if you don't come to terms with the civil war and monuments are great teaching tools in that regard. i don't believe in removing every piece of sculpture or monument put up. i think they are good teaching tools. >> host: timothy is next in harper woods, michigan democrat. >> caller: thank you, gretta.

i have a problem with the free slave state and i feel a lot of people misinterpreted. they were hanging blacks with the confederate flag in the back and i will that is not right. they say you are yahoos doing that but still it brings back bad memories for people relatives and people that fought in the war and i feel that you know, it doesn't represent america. thank you for my comment. >> host: professor, your thoughts. >> guest: well i think it is impossible to disassociate the confederate flag from either slavery or hard core racist attitudes. when the kkk gathered there are

confederate flags waving. the idea you can separate it from the confederacy and slavery is not realistic. and people who lived in the confederacy wouldn't do it either. they were not shy about talking about how important slavery was in trying to establish their nation. you can read robert e lee and you will get a sense of how important maintaining a slave hp holding society was for those vying for the confed arrest. >> host: there is a column about how lee viewed the civil war. can you talk about that? >> guest: lee would have been a moderate.

he wrote in the 1850's everyone agreed slavery was wrong and it was a problem. but he didn't think anyone should do anything to get rid of slavery. he loathed the abolitionist and thought god would get rid of slavery in his own time. if you want an understanding of the view toward slavery in the war you should read the letter he wrote a few days after he issued the proclamation letter. lee was lived and he said confederates had to fight no matter watt to prevent a loss led by republicans who would interfere the way with the white south ordered social relations as a slave-holding place. that letter is very short and it is absolutely crystal clear in terms of what lee's views of slavery were. >> on the "meet the press" this past sunday the moderator had

an ex change with south carolina senator lindsay grahm over the issue of naming institutions and buildings after people like robert lee and other confederates. >> i am curious your reaction about what david brooks wrote about the robert e lee problem and problem and he said we should keep lee's name on the inconstitutions that reflect service like washington and lee university where he was president but we should remove lee's name from schools, roads and institutions where the name could be scene as acceptance of what he did and stood for during the war. and these debates are about jefferson davis as well and prominent in virginia with jefferson davis highway. where do you think we should go forward? >> if you look back -- the goal is to go forward.

i would say today why would you stop there? the whole country was founded by slave owners for the most part. here is the question, why would you name the capital of any nation after a slave owner? well i think washington, d.c. is appropriately named even though george washington was a slave owner because when you look at what he did as a whole i think he earned the right to be called one of the great figures in america history. as to robert e lee if it wasn't for his leadership after the war urging the soldiers to lay down their weapons and become good americans god only knows what would have happened after 1865. >> host: professor, give us your take on the history from the senator. >> guest: i think he raises a couple questions and one is lee's behavior after the war. lee was a public reconciliation

after the war saying look forward and not backwards. not to wallow in the past. that is true. outwardly he was a reconcilationist. inwardly he was unhappy with the verdict of the war and expressed anger at reconstruction and the activities of the republican party in reconstruction. there are two robert e lee's after the war. the public one, publically he behaved impeccable but privately he was upset with how the war had gone. it has been interesting to me that the memory of this great civil war, this great rebellion as they would have called it in the loyal states during the civil war yielded by the 20th century two heroes and they were lincoln and lee. i am 64 years old and became interested during the

anniversary of the war and it was lee and lincoln. with arlington made, the robert e lee memorial looking down across the from the lincoln memorial and toward the u.s. grant monument in front of the u.s. state capital -- it is quite a fascinating memory of the american civil war took with that reconcilation dimension becoming prominent by the mid-20th century. >> host: we have james in grand forks, north dakota republican you are next. >> caller: hi it is me again. how are you? >> host: did we talk to you? >> caller: no i am on the air

now. i have an ancestor who fought at get- get- gety berg and i heard they are probably taking the confederate flag out of the gift shop and i hope not. as a northern and westerner, i have great respect for the south and those men. those men who are laying in the graves should have the confederate flag flag flying over their graves. that is what they fought for and i believe that. there is such a lack of perspective, professor. i don't know why one of the reasons i think this kid went crazy is the fact harry reid nowhere to turn. he looked at the website with racial crime statistics. there is a lot of black and white crime going on. i don't think what he did was horrible but the thing is most kid are not learning that slavery is a human institution.

black people practices it for thousands of years the muslims were the first to enslave the black race the native americans practiced it. in central america they cut the hearts out of their slaves. it is a brutal thing and part of the human condition. we as white people ended it as a sense of morality christian morality, men had a burden in their heart to end it. we should actually be proud of who we are if we had brains and backbones. i am glad to hear you don't want to take down the jefferson memorial but there are people who did. the war on the confederate flag is a war on all of white heritage and it will continue as we are displaced demographically and our cultural will be replaced and a new racism will

replace the old and a new history will replace the old history. >> host: james we will leave it there. a lot to respond to. go ahead. >> guest: i am not sure what to respond to. the people who take my classes know that slavery has been part of the history for far longer than it hasn't been. it is one of the unfortunate ways people react. it is amazing emancipation came when it did. it came because of the civil war and one of the great irony is this effort on the part of 11 southern states to protect the institution of slavery in the long-term brought it to end in four years. if we would have had the distin

distinction of being the last if it were not for the civil war. white americans in the mid-19th century were extremely prejudice and racism wasn't in their vocab. i don't find it interesting to discover prejudice among white people. it is like going to the beach and finding sand. they are prejudice. that is not an interesting question to me anymore. what is remarkable is that even in a nation that was this prejudice as the united states was the vast majority of people in the united states decided that emancipation had to come. not for the reasons we may not want. they used to get rid of the threat of the union going forward but it came. so yes i think that is something to be celebrated and something remarkable considering the state of the nation in the mid-19th century. there is nothing easier than

beating up on dead people and saying how misguided they were. the same thing comes to us in 50 years with them looking back saying they cannot imagine why we do what we do. it is part of trying to understand the past. i think in some ways you have to take the people on their own ground and then try to understand them. it is not so much a question of i like them or don't. >> host: debra, a democrat, is next. >> caller: i want to ask what affect did christianity have on these slave mentality in those days? and for the previous caller slavery is still going on it is just by another name. thank you and have a beautiful week. >> guest: religion is a very good question. it played a prominent role in debates about slavery in the mid-19th century united states.

and people against slavery could find parts of the bible that stute suited their argument and slave-holders found parts that suited them well. there was a good deal of positive talk about slavery that came out of southern pulpits and there was a very negative talk about slavery that came out of northern pulpits. the bible is a big document with lots of passages that can suit arguments and that was the case in debuts about slavery in the mid-19th century. >> host: kevin is watching in washington, d.c. an independent and you are on the air. >> caller: i have so much to talk about and a little time. i wanted to ask the professor how we help people have an accurate understanding of history? the previous caller said a fight

against the confederate flag is a fight against european history and their culture which is unfathomable to me because those europeans left europe to come create the united states of america and 900 percent of american says we are american. most of the europeans don't know they are from germany. i think the professor would know most largest immigration group came from germany but most don't know that. everybody comes to america to become a american. that simple point showed that people are unaware of the history. now we are talking about the confederate flag and people are making up wild stories because they don't know their history. this young man did an awful thing because of some made up history and some skewed statistics about black and white crime. it is all ridiculous. as a historian, professor, how

do we suggest we help our fellow citizens have an accurate account of decision so we can make informed opinion and not spew foolishness all over the place? >> guest: i think your comment is exactly on target. i think as nation we have only the most tenous understanding of our history. we are not good about that. it is not just people interviewed with an eye toward showing how little most americans know about their history but we really don't. i think that implicit in your comment is something i believe strongly in and that is we have to engage our history, warts and all, very honestly and that means engaging san diegos -- you have to talk about the role of slavery, the way it was in the economic social and political dimensions of the youtubesunited states,

it is not the only part of history but it is important. trying to push that aside somehow leads to distortion of what was going on. it is unfathomable to me that the united states could have reached the point of secession in a war without the institution of slavery and how it went through the free-holding states. there are lots of attempts to do this. saying it was about the tariff. they went to war about the tariff. that is my favorite piece of silliness. if you drill down to the causes of the war you get to slavery. anybody in the mid-19th century would have said you are trying to understand secession in the war without taking about slavery, are you out of your mind? what is wrong with you. as lincoln said everybody knew somehow the cause of the war was

slavery. everybody did and they were blunt about it at the time. what we need to do is try our best to recover that by talking about it honestly. doesn't mean every confederate was a nazi. if confederates are nazis then what are actual nazis? it is important to engage these people on their ground and in an unblinking way and deal with the importance within a civil war context of slavery in all of its dimensions. >> host: was the civil war the reason or was slavery the reason of the civil war or a reason? >> guest: i have lost my feed here so i am not hearing you anymore but if your question was the civil war about slavery it is a complicated question. would it have come without issues relating to slavery? absolutely not. in particularly the question of

whether slavery would be allowed to expand into the federal territorytear territorytear territory territory territory. was it a crusade from slavery from the beginning? absolutely not. for the white people it was a war to save the union and they embraced emancipation as a tool for embrace that. a percentage were against it because of the moral crusade but they were a minority. >> host: we are talking with professor from the university of virginia and author of the book cause of lost and forgotten. we have about 15 minutes left with him. takeicing comments and questions on the civil war and the memories of it. we will go to georgia, a

republican go ahead. >> caller: hello. i am almost 90 years old. and i still have some faculties about me. i was taught that the reason that christopher columbus sailed was because the jews were given so many weeks to get out of spain. and they got together and raised the amount of money in order to sail. now am i correct in remembering that from school? or have i just forgotten?

>> host: thank you. >> guest: well i don't know what you were taught in school but you may be remembering exactly correctly what you were taught in school. but i am not sure that has much of a relation to what we are talking about. i cannot remember. >> host: brenda from north carolina. >> caller: i wanted to say i have ancestors who fought and died in the civil war on the confederate side. however, as a white adult, i view the confederate flag as a

piece of memrobilia to go into a statement museum. we have flown that flag in the face of those who are offended by it and it is time passed time to move the flag. people need to remember that this flag was placed there it cannot be removed accept by a vote of our state legislaturer with a two third majority of our state legislature which if you are familiar with south carolina state history you will find that is going to be a hard thing to

do. >> host: professor? >> guest: i agree with that. i think it was remarkable so many leaders, both democratic and republican came forward and argued in favor of removing it. i don't think that would have happened 15 years ago and certainly not 25 years ago. i have no idea how a vote would go. but i thought it was telling you had an array of leaders from cross party lines stepping forward. >> host: and the "washington post" this morning below the fold on the front page: for next generation a new legacy. it is a piece looking at south carolina's state senator paul therman. the youngest son of the man famous for his segregation

stand. paul is helping to push the re removal of the confederate flag at the capital. talk about how viewpoints have changed over the years and in most recent history. >> guest: i think they have changed. my previous comment is part of the reason for thinking that. i think the reaction among the leaders of south carolina would have been different not that long ago than they have been in this practice. whenever i hear that nothing has changed, i smile and that is a sense that -- that is an indication people are not aware of the past. when i was a young person there were no black faces on television. it was an incredibly different world that has changed a great deal. are there still prejudice people not just in the south but elsewhere in the united states? of course there are. you cannot legislate that away. but i think the world has

changed in important ways. i think it is -- i think the debate over what happened in south carolina is an indication that it is headed in the right direction at least that is my reading of it. >> host: and take a look at this head line. jeb bush calls confederate flag a racist symbol and became the first presidential candidate to campaign south carolina since the deadly shooting and was drawn into the key subject of the state-wide debate. take a look at what he had to say: >> what happened in the last two weeks in charleston and here has reminded me of an experience i had as governor. it was my first or second year there was a big controversial in georgia of flying the state flag either on top of the building or on the premises. it dawned on me florida has the

confederate flag flying on its capital grounds. one of the six flags in florida, i believe. and so i decided to do something politically incorrect. i decided to remove the flags. i was governor, i figured i could do it and i did. i took them off the premiseermitters premises and put them in the museum of florida history where the heritage is respected but the symbols that divided the south in many ways, the symbols used in most recent modern history, perhaps not at the beginning of time but the symbols were racist and if you are trying to lean forward, rather than live in the past you want to eliminate the barriers that create disagreements. so i did. we eliminated all of the controversy and opened up the

wings. and i applaud governor haley for doing moreorless the same thing. >> host: what did you hear from the presidential candidate? >> guest: i heard he is taking me the only position that someone who wants to be president of the united states can take in this campaign. measurable and reasonable position. i think in his discussion of removing the confederate symbols from florida, the current florida flag adopted toward the end of the 19th century, has the st. andrew's cross in it. it doesn't have the stars. it isn't the full confederate flag but it and alabama's flag and mississippi's flag all were changed in a period of about 10 years at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century and they all go back to the st. andrew's cross.

so it is more complicated than jeb bush said in his statement. >> reporter: zac from iowa. democrat. hello. >> caller: good morning. my question and comment per tains to the confederate flag -- pertains -- not as much as a racist symbol but how can these people claim their pride and heritage on a flag that was based on a bunch of traders and people who committed treason against the united states of america. >> host: robert e lee decided to fight against america and others. >> guest: that is one of the oldest questions about the civil war. are they traders or it is and we don't have nearly enough time to talk about that here. it is a

great question. it is a question that is a theme that can run through an entire course on the civil war. it is rather it was unconstitutional to succeed or not. all of this is gripped for different kinds of mills in this debate. you either think robert lee was a trader or not. and it is -- i have found over the years the people of one position or the other have that position and keep that position. i will come back to my earlier statement that i think it is very interesting or odd, you pick the word that the leading figure of this effort to dismantle the united states became one of the two great national heroes related to the civil war. i think that has happened nowhere else in world history. if it has someone can send me an e-mail and remind me of the

place that exist. >> host: what about civil war reenactments? do you think they are educational for the public? do you go? >> guest: i have never been to a civil war reenactment and i have been to the encampments but i haven't been to one of the mock battles. i think it would be hard to have a civil war reenactment without confederate flags. >> host: what do you think about the educational value? do you think there is one? >> guest: well i think there could be. i think it seems to be more of an entertainment value than an educational value. but there is a value in seeing people maneuvering close to the way they did and you get a sense

of how they moved around the battlefields and how a cannon was fired and a musket so yes in those ways i think they are educational. >> host: and as the debate continues in south carolina about whether or not to take on the flag the state legislature will get to vote what do you think about, you know it ending up in a museum? as jeb bush was talking about that is where the flags in florida ended up. >> guest: i think that is where lots of confederate flags are now. the original ones certainly are there. i don't think they need to be removed. the museum is a perfect place for them to be. some place where you are trying understand what happened in the mid-century united states. if you don't have confederate flags as part of that discussion you will miss what is going on in the united states. of course they should be in museums. absolutely. with good text or interpreters

that locate them within the history of the united states. >> host: professor at the university of virginia and also the author of causes won, lost and forgotten joining us from virginia. we want to thank you sir for the conversation and talking to our viewers. appreciate your time. >> guest: thanks for inviting me. >> tomorrow on washington journal, we talk about a recent report looking at the growing number of prisoners incarcerated in the federal and state system and proposes changes sentencing guidelines.