well, thank you for coming to our panel this morning entitled tale of three presidential homes the good, the bad and the ugly. our panel today will discuss identity politics and anti-racist ideology have infected the presidential homes in virginia and also what this movement aims to do to our nation's cherished ideals. but this corruption of history has deep roots in the progressive left's collective mind and the aggressive of this ideology will not in presidential homes or in our

nation's educational institutions, for that matter. in the words political theorist joshua mitchell, the confrontation with identity politics is the supreme battle of our time. for those who would defend american principles and constitutional order. so to sharpen our thinking on score, we have assembled an excellent panel who i will invite to come on stage. now. bill allen is emeritus dean and professor at michigan's university. he is a senior visiting scholar at the university of colorado's benson center for the study of western and he is a tremendous of the american founding and the author of numerous books essays most recently. he's the editor of the state of black america, published in may by encounter books.

sam gragg is a distinguished fellow in political economy at, the american institute for economic research, and he is a visiting fellow in the simon center for american studies at the heritage foundation, as well as an affiliated scholar with the acton institute senior, writer for law and liberty. he is widely in political economy, economic history, monetary theory and the author of numerous books, many of which have won awards, including recently the essential natural law and new book the next american economy nation state and markets in an uncertain will be published this fall by encounter. my colleague brenda farah is assistant director and senior policy analyst in the simon center for american studies, and she is the catalyst for our panel today with her new study a tale of three presidential houses the good the bad and the ugly, just published by heritage. and peter, what is the president of the national association of scholars? dr. wood is the author. 1620 a critical response to the

1619 project a b in mouth anger in america. now and the book diversity invention of a concept, as well as numerous essays and reviews. thank you all so much for joining us. so brenda, i will turn to you first. you authored this report. you have given us the details at these three presidential homes of our great virginians. tell us about the state of play at these homes the good, the bad and the ugly and what's driving this. yes. so you would think that when you go to these homes, you would learn a great deal about these three exceptional americans. and unfortunately, that is always the case. the title of the report is the good the bad and the ugly, because in this mount vernon is

the good. monticello is bad and montpelier is unfortunately the ugly. overall, do learn a great deal. george washington, when they go to mt. . there is an entire museum and education center to george washington which takes them through the constitutional convention. the french and indian war, the revolutionary war. george washington's president see, among other accomplishments during the house tours guides talk about george washington, the enslaved people who lived there, and the contents of the mansion, and then the mount vernon ladies association also maintains a memorial to the enslaved people, as well as the tombs of george washington and martha washington. overall, they have the story of slavery into the story of vernon. while paint careful attention to

george washington's accomplishments managed shallow does not measure up to this standard. the main tours there are a great deal towards them on a cello, but include a two and a half hour long tour on from slavery to freedom, a 45 minute tour of the house, 45 minute tour of slavery and garden towards the house towards the most popular tour and guides talk about the contents and inventions in the mansion. some of jefferson's accomplishments slavery and jefferson time in france, which is a way introducing the story of sally hemings. monticello has chosen to convey the story without qualification rather than a over which historians. the exhibits at monticello include exhibits the cellars on the enslaved people, the families and individuals who lived there. the purpose of those rooms the reconstructed along mulberry row

and exhibits at the base of the mountain on the building of monticello and jefferson. as a scientist and architect. much of this was made possible through a donation by philanthropist rubenstein. overall, at monticello, there are no exhibits dedicated to thomas jefferson as president, as vice secretary of state, and as minister to france. there is not a lot time dedicated to his accomplished. while they are sometimes meant in passing, i would not that that is the dominant focus. at monticello, there is a short video on thomas jefferson and marcelo slavery. unfortunately montpelier is the worst of these three offenders. so it seems that montpelier has adopted a critical race theory narrative and that the southern poverty law center was very

influential in. the framing of the exhibits at montpelier. unfortunately, there are no exhibits dedicated to james madison. james was our fourth president. he was the father of the constitution. the primary of the bill of rights and wrote many of the federalist papers, which ensured the passing of the constitution. these are only mentioned in passing during the house tours and a brief video in the center. the dominant focus now at montpelier is the near distinction of color exhibit, which includes a series of exhibits on slavery in the cellars and reconstructed quarters in the south yard. the single exhibit on the constitution does not focus on james madison's role in shaping that document or the remarkable ness of constitution which to date is the oldest written constitution in the world.

it focuses on slavery and another portion of the settlers is a contemporary video on slavery's lasting legacies, which contends that there are probably more defeats in pursuit of justice and fairness and equality in american history than there are moments of triumph. so it seems there were two associates of the sdlc who were in those videos, multiple lines from that video echoes, the spl curriculum, all eight of the children's books that are featured in a supplementary exhibit, children on teaching children about race and slavery were recommended by the splc. so they seem to have a great deal of influence at montpelier. so that is the state of play at these three presidential homes

and it is rather unfortunate because preserving these institutions carries with it, the special dispensation of preserving the legacy of these three founders. and when thomas jefferson was at the end of his, he wrote to madison and said, care of me. when did. this is something that now falls to the american people. and we must fight to take back historic sites. thank you. thank you, brendan. you know, brendan has been talking about sort of the, you know, the takeover of two of these homes. help us think deeply about the anti-racist ideology, the identity, politics, themes present and what that means for the american founding, it seems to me what they mean to do to the american founding. no progressives have told us since their inception in america that we're an ill founded country. of course, the 1619 project, an anti-racism upped the ante

dramatically, saying, you know, we are built on slavery. we built on racism. we have a slave owners. so help us think about what's at stake here. well, let me first of all, just observe what a wonderful is that to heritage brendan had done. i think it's important draw attention to these dynamics at the present time, because what we're witnessing, as i see it, is an attempt to colonize culture in the united states from an alien perspective, really well, some more 40 years ago, when i served on the commission on civil, i praised highly morris dees, who founded the southern border poverty law center. and i did so because he began a work that was important, valuable and made a contribution to strengthen the society. but what has happened at the splc in the short time frame of recent history has been the colonization of the splc by an alien to, the theology and

approach. so it is longer what morris dees founded. and i mentioned that in order to illustrate what in the larger frame is being attempted with regard to u.s. history and culture. so as it has been taken over sdlc now the effort is to expand and take over our understanding of culture in order to remake our. so a very short story, put this in perspective and then we will be able to understand how to appreciate what the anterior system campaign is about. want to introduce you to stephen hopkins. stephen hopkins was, governor of rhode island, who also served in second continental congress and signed the declaration of independence. he was governor of rhode island who moved from massachusetts who happened to have acquired the slaves. a handful, three or four slaves. but at the time of the declaration of independence and shortly before that, in the midst of this growing consciousness of the

wrongfulness of slavery, hopkins came to the conviction that he shouldn't hold slaves and freed slaves. hopkins, who still has, of course, who live in the united states, represents, therefore, one stream of development at the time of the declaration of independence, the constitution, a dawning awareness of wrongfulness of slavery was part of the picture. and what makes that of interest to us, particularly is that hopkins, in the constitutional or pardon me, in the second continental congress in 1770 576 was the third generation hopkins in the united states in north america, the first stephen hopkins arrived in 1609 and was at jamestown. and in that jamestown settlement. of course, we are aware of he to escape by a quirk of history at jamestown. he how shall i put this he

incurred a sentence of death for prosecution because he had restive about the manner in which those aristocratic adventurers were trying to force the indians into performing labor of the settlement, which they wouldn't do. and the only reason his sentence of because he spoke out against this was commuted was that he was the only one that was doing any work, and they were utterly dependent on him. and that single chance when his wife died in london and he had to return to take care of his orphaned children, he escaped the destruction that james town. but every. in 1619 he returned on the mayflower. he was part of that small band dedicated to forming a civil society based on the principle of consent. you got into trouble in massachusetts. also know that is because you

opened a public there. and in running that public house he was willing to receive all comers that would attracted the attention of the powers that be that reprimanded him and happily did not prosecute him for being indiscriminate in his reception of persons his public house. my point is this we see at origins of the country there are more one strain. there were, of course, a handful of people who brought slaves on the mayflower, but there was also stephen hopkins. there was, in the course of development, the later stephen hopkins, who in the burgeoning growth of slavery in the united states for a time fell prey to that practice, but also recovered from it. so that there were are now descendants of hopkins who reflect the tradition of the original stephen hopkins as well as people who came with slave. the attempt to redefine the united states as only a slaveholding society is therefore false to the facts. the history and the culture.

and that attempt can only succeed insofar as the attempt to colonize the culture succeeds, to take over the rule of interpretation and to control the narrative as they now like to say. so that's the period we're living in, and that's what's happening in these residential homes and many other historical associations driven to extend slave networks and processes of development through museum even, and to regional humanities associations and many others. they're all working in a concatenate fashion to construct a of the united states that will reshape what conceive about culture be it. sam another dimension. this is the economic dimension. and to change the way we think about the history of the american economy, the american free market, and the insistence of a number of new histories. this was a part of the 1619

project as well, that the american economy is up with slavery, that it's predatory and anything but voluntary. and this is a part of the story of the wealth of america. help us think more about this and where it goes wrong. well, it goes wrong in many ways. and i think that what brenda's analysis documents and what professor allen has really think shown very well is the way in which what's happening at the presidential homes reflects a broader attempt to completely. i like the word colonize colonize american history and see this particularly with regard to the 1619 project. but that also reflects a broader argument that's been going on for a while about slavery and its significance, the emergence of american capitalism. so there's one school of thought called the the history of capitalism and the title sort of gives it away, i think, which has been much popularized by the 1619 project. and it argues that slavery in

general and the cotton industry associated with that in particular was really drove. the emergence. what is the strongest in the world today. and in fact my colleague at the american institute for economic research, phil magnus, he's done yeoman's work. i think demolishing that thesis in his book, 1619 project, a critique. and back in january 2021, heritage published a of my own on this particular topic and i argue that the 1619 project account of american capitalism reflects factual errors. very ambiguous ideologies of ideas, and draws very heavily on this one, very contested school of thinking about the economic history of the united states and of course, the reality is that slavery in the cotton that was associated with that, it played a relatively role in the emergence the american economy. now, that's not to justify it.

that's not to minimize the horrors of slavery or anything like. but actually, if you look at the economics of slavery, it's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that it actually damaged the emergence of the american economy and particular damage to the southern states in which it was obviously most prevalent. now, i want to be clear, slavery made many plantation owners extremely wealthy. we shouldn't play down. that's that absolutely true. but it's also the case that, the emergence of the cotton industry, which was driven by what some people, the financialization of slavery went slaves. because slave owning becomes a very valuable source of capital. slave owners would basically mortgages on this and this is how they expanded the cotton industry much so that they reduced the south south to basically a one crop plantation is any economist will tell is

usually a disaster in the long term set of economic arrangements. but here's the crucial point the cotton boom which took off around about 1800. it suddenly was boom, but it had a much smaller impact on the american economy than, most people realize. so in 1860, cotton production represented somewhere between five and 6% of america's economy. now, the new history of capitalism, people will tell you it's much, but that's simply not true. it's about 5 to 6%. again, not to minimize the terrible nature what was going on, but it's very important to keep this whole perspective. and what happens, of course, the south, as a consequence of moving in this crop production direction, was that it enabled the emergence of what what we would call today a type of crony whereby slave would basically move from part of the country to each other essentially going to

the river banks heavily, exploiting these parts of the river bank, using up all the soil and then moving on. it's like a predatory type of economic set arrangements. but here's the thing. we also know that slavery wasn't essential in terms of the emergence in, the long term productivity of cotton in the united states. we know this because cotton production collapsed more or less with the beginning, the civil war, right? so the south was unable in, some cases unwilling to export cotton. so the amount of cotton being produced went from something like 1.8 billion to something like 28 million. that's a huge decrease. but after the war, slavery was abolished. right. we suddenly see cotton production take off again without slavery being part of the picture. so in that sense, what we see, i

think, is that, yes, slavery is part of the emergence of the cotton industry, but it's also the case that the cotton industry was not in itself completely dependent upon this particular institution. and we also see that in the long term it retarded the economic development of the south so much so that people living in the south in 1860 were actually poorer per gdp per capita than they were in 1800. so slavery certainly benefited the small group of plantation owners who were very well connected to government circles. that's what we call crony capitalism today. but it impoverished the overall south, including obviously of poor whites as well. the good thing, i think that comes out of this is that in the end it was industrial capitalism in the north that gave the north the military strength to crush the south, defeat the

confederacy and get rid of the institu sin of slavery. so in the end, slavery in, the cotton industry made the south much weaker and much less able defend itself militarily when came to the civil war and the ultimate triumph of the north was in its economic strength, which the south didn't have precisely because they went down this path of embracing slavery and moving in this direction of a one industry type of economy. so i think these are all very helpful correctives when it comes to understanding the institution of slavery the role that it played in southern economies. and is very important to contest the type of narrative that we hear today about the role that slavery in the south and in the emergence of capitalism as a whole. i think that's very important because plays into what we're talking about here, which is i like this expression, the colonization of american history by i think the expression is

exactly right. foreign ideologies. thank you. peter, you have written a book like response to the 1619 project that you've thought a lot about this ideology. i think we've our panels have talked about sort of the motivation, what they're trying to do. but help us understand the essence and where did the 1619 project and what is it building on to even make these claims? well, historically, it is true that slaves were brought to jamestown virginia in august of 16, 19, were brought by a pirate ship, white lion, at the jamestown didn't recognize the institution of slavery. so they turned their slaves into indentured and they were shortly after that emancipated the institution of slavery as we know, it came somewhat later in the 17th century or in the english colonies. where does all this come from?

it's been known by historians hundreds of years that that the fact that they just recited are true. nikole hannah-jones taking advantage of the coincidence of the. in 2019. so 400 years of slavery constitutes basically the entire history of the united states. the slavery becomes in her view this microscope up to which every aspect of history can be reexamined. the result that we see that the pursuit power by a relative prosperous white majority was sufficient compromise every value put forward by americans were false when they were written, she writes. well, nikole hannah-jones is not that original thinker. there had been others who had been promoting this kind of

interpretation as far back as 1930s. the american communist party, a fairly large role in developing narrative of one of the the first to give some of the phrases to a was angela davis in the 1970s. there is a there's a pre-history to the 1619 project in which a fringe of american dissidents were putting forward claims. they never really got any traction, although one can find a shelf full of books which similar ideas were put forward. what happens with the 1619 project is that the the power of the new york times comes into play. the last page of the original new york times in which this thing was was an announcement by the pulitzer center that it was

going to be rolled out as a curriculum in the nation's schools. and by the time the announcement was made, it was already happening. so we are now at the point where the 1619 project and pieces of that are labeled by other things critical race theory or anti-racism or the du abolitionism. there are about a dozen different names by which this goes by or put forward as the accurate history of the american past. the motives this or of course, somewhat murky, but in some cases clear. nikole hannah-jones herself has been precise in saying that what she wants is reparations and that this is in her mind a project aimed at persuading the american congress to pass billions of dollars in reparations to the descendants of people who were enslaved.

that's a piece of it, i think one has to add elements that one would probably not acknowledge. or that was a progenitor the project. but there's an element of intellectual vanity in this one false claim to put forward there demonstrated to be false people refuse to change that's been part of the the new york times's approach of the 1619 project itself ballooned into a 600 page book by the same, renouncing in the nation's curricula. some of it has been wrapped up close by the southern poverty law center, which had already been promoting howard zinn's and the zinn project, a book on along similar lines of nikole hannah-jones as a partner in some of this has been ibram x kennedy and his books on anti-racism would what comes of

all of this i would say is hatred for america basically a fairly strong feeling that we're rotten country from the start and that every american student to know that and to feel it on this or dissension thus becomes an end in itself. that is to be taught that a racial division is so fundamental to america that it will never disappear. reparation need to be paid. but they will not expunge the guilt. you can do teaches us that racism is so fundamental to america. we will be living with forever. and the only option is to engage in what he called anti-racist, which is the end of racism by blacks against whites. this is a oh, a story of our of envy, hatred, disgust of being

promoted as positive values that we should reorient our towards or none of this really makes sense if thinking of the united states as a place where civic education of how to be a constructive member, a self-governing republic is the goal of education. instead, we're turning education down and here we go back to the the statues, the monuments and the historic houses, all of which are avenues by which historically people have sought to understand who we were to see ourselves through the lens of history, as well as understanding the of government and the kind of personal character that are necessary to maintain a free republic. all of those are now being through a definite systematic effort to teach us. instead that instead of history,

we get this mythology instead of government, we get an account of our institutions has been essentially pernicious and instead of trying to form good character with young people, we teach them that hatred and dissension dividing oneself against nations and fellow citizens or the or the right path towards power and independence. so the motives, all this are. well, i would have to say that on the whole, their motives, our are put in the individual into the category of the racial card into racial categories for the purpose of cultivating resentment. thank you. i want to turn now to the audience to get your questions for the panel. and so, yeah, just in general.

is this working okay? my understanding that the british, when they ended slavery in the 1830s, had a reparations, was paid not to the slaves but to the slave who were deprived of the property by the state. so when we speak of reparations today about that, the slaves should receive the reparations. it seems totally distorted from what where it should have been paid. to me at least. that for a of the panel or for anyone just as. okay, sorry, sorry. i played well. the word is now i would a owned by the movement to the left that has taken it up as reparations

for the descendants of slaves. the idea of to have owners. i've read about only historically i've never heard any contemporary person that that was a good idea and i think it rather it's not the question that john. so this is a very important i think brenda you've done a great job and really good public service. so we have other going on in this country who are coming up on an anniversary of, the declaration of independence. and so it seems when anybody, for instance, wants talk about our constitution and all they want to talk about is the provision that allowed for the continued importation of, although it frankly had a cut off time at which that would which was not too far in the distance. and all they want to do is talk

about the 3/5 compromise, even though had nothing to do with giving blacks the opportunity to vote and everything to do with trying to provide extra electoral college votes and congressional representatives. the slaveholding south. how do we begin to recapture this and anticipate kind of our celebration of the declaration independence prevent, the southern poverty law center and, other groups of like minded groups from capturing what should be a celebration and turning it into another chapter for the 1619 project. i i'll be happy to tackle that that's part of the reason i introduce the declaration of independence through. stephen hopkins in my opening remarks because the. question that's important is the question of what have we received by way of benefit whether as individuals or as a society for which we all proper gratitude and respect act now

and can certainly say of hopkins that he has descendants who can be properly thankful that he came to the moral awakening he came to. but that's not the end of the story the people he freed. also have descendants and can look back with thankfulness about the fact that he came to that moral awakening. and as i listen to sam, greg describing the circumstances surrounding civil war economically and the transition from slave grown cotton to non-slip, growing cotton, i realize that what we see there is, of course, an echo of the private decision that hopkins made being made on a social scale, either came to a moral awakening and those who are the descendants, the country that came to that moral awakening have reason to be grateful have reason to show respect so that the picture is much more complete than the one dimensional portrait often asked to contemplate.

the reality is that the founding period was a period that decisively put in motion a resistance to the of slavery, if not an attempt to overcome the practice of slavery immediately. then you refer, of course, to the provision to end the slave trade in 20 years after the ratification the constitution. we mustn't forget that when that finally came to be in 1807, when the legislature was introduced and then signed at the beginning of 1808, it also launched a controversy, not a controversy over whether this should be ended. but what do you if people violate the and bring in the contraband and the country discovered in that moment, the very thing that we're all talking about, that is the continuing source of dispute us, i.e. the original draft of the legislation in the secretary of state drafted and course the president was the one who was to

sign it as assumed ordinary legal boilerplate that a contraband would be sold in the interest of the government. well, of course the contraband in this case would be human beings and. if you're giving testimony against property and men, it's difficult to say that the government should, in fact, then assume that property and benefit from through sale, and that same line of reasoning followed all the way up through abraham lincoln's consideration of the confiscation acts and, the emancipation proclamation. abraham lincoln objected to the contraband and was opposed poised to veto the second confiscation act. for that reason because it was signed property of men and he wanted to avoid that moral stain in words. the country has been from its origins, riven with a debate that always tended in one direction toward rejection of the concept of property in men.

so as we look back and we ask what is owed to the past, the thing that is most decisively to the past is the moral awakening that produced the respect and the love, frankly, for freedom that we all now know and. if we took reparations, compensation, whatever you want, we see the same dynamic play, whether it's in the jade tree. washington refused to satisfy the demands the south for compensation for the slaves away during the revolutionary war or the treaty of ghent, where john. john. quincy adams, as secretary of state, was forced to relent because. the madison, frankly, was prepared now to accept this obligation. but we also found at that time through the period following the signing of the treaty of ghent, we around actually affirming property in men. this is an ongoing situation which has been consistently answered in one way. we will affirm property in men

however difficult it was to it. that answer. so you ask your question in the context in which you're asking us to unfold alive history, not a dead history, and when i refer to people trying to colonize our culture and colonize our history, they're really trying to escape from history. and the reality we have to face is never an escape from history. it may be that there are some terrible things result from people who are to colonize it, as emperor julian discovered when he tried to eliminate christianity in rome and constantinople, he did succeed in ending roman empire, but not in ending christianity. other members of the panel on question oh, isn't of the the whole point of this presidential home discussion that the presidential homes are enormous certainly symbolic in this discussion. and that's what i think the genius of brendan's paper is it focuses places that were owned

by people who were important for the founding of the united the constitution, etc. all three men were presidents their record of achievement is is amazing when you think about it. but when the symbols where they live, where so many people go and visit, one of the things that brendan's report does is list the sheer numbers of people go every year, and if they're going to these places, they're hearing this distort and history of the people who inhabited these places and the the very difficult history of slavery and they're not about some of the things that professor allen talked about which is how the founding, the constitutional period represent type of moral awakening as to the evil of slavery. if they're not that, then i'm worried about what things like the celebration of the declaration of independence are going to be like. so holding the line on these

houses and also challenged, for example, the trustees of these institutions to explain has happened to them. i think a very important point to make as we move closer and closer to this very commemoration in american history history. other questions. yes yes. yes. i'm john burleigh. i work on financial at the competitive enterprise institute, but i'm also the author of the st martin's press, george washington entrepreneur, about all of washington's unique and innovative business ventures. thank you so for the panel, i have a question on constructive solutions, mostly on the presidential homes, which i agree are so important. i agree with i believe was said at the beginning that mount vernon is just so much better than some of these other inputting history accurate and putting it in context. i've seen it's president as well as. the historian mary thomson will mention they talk about slavery,

about how, you know, it was it was existed the world and what washington and other founders did to help end it. but i'm wondering also if that has something to do with mount vernon incentive structure, given it was private from the beginning, takes no government funding and you know also is very entrepreneurial itself. washington was and reopening the whiskey distillery and actually selling products washington's whiskey they don't want to give up that fact. they don't want to give their brand an unnecessary inaccurate image. so they have the incentives you know they have, you know, sort of capitalist incentives. so i'm wondering if we should pursue alternate like for the other homes, if they do receive federal funding. and i admit i'm not familiar with it, to take away that federal funding or maybe or maybe condition it and. the other thing i'm wondering is if scholars yourselves might organize visit to some of these other homes that are their homes that are not as, you know,

upstanding on, you know, appalling the history and just politely some of the guides when they when they when they say some of these inaccuracies or things with that kind of context, i realize that would an effort to organize but is it worth the are either either of those initiatives pursuing i'll i'll take that so in response to the question of where federal funds received montpelier received a federal grant for a supplement three children's exhibit two to each children about and slavery they received state funding to for special projects and to develop anti-racist for use in virginia public schools. monticello has received grant from the national endowment for the humanities for an exhibit. the declaration, which is wonderful, but the guides often claim that jefferson did not mean all when he wrote all men

are created equal. so there is some question over whether or not the content of that exhibit will be accurate. as far as solutions i would offer to maine buckets, one solution is what can we do about these now? and couple of solutions would be choose who to support. mount vernon is doing a very good job right now and we need to help them hold line. so choose to go to mount vernon over some these other places. another advice would be if you do go write an honest review of these and indicate what do you think they are doing well and what? doing poorly in ways they could improve in the long term think the solution needs to be terrific nice, that this is a very broad project and the word is vigilant so the national

trust for historic preservation that owns montpelier owns 27 historic sites along around the country. they have almost. $50 million in assets and have a grassroot activism arm. they give out grants to other historical sites. so there is a great deal of potential for this narrative to spread elsewhere. david rubenstein, who gave $20 million to monticello and $10 million to montpelier for mere distinction of color exhibits has also given $10 million to the thomas jefferson memorial for new exhibits. there the anti-racist crick long is coming down pipeline and as southern poverty law center is infamous for mailing their curriculum directly to schools and now those individuals sit on the board in an advisory council

montpelier. they would have that strategy to get back curriculum directly to the schools without parental knowledge so. i think parents need to be vigilant in recognizing that this could come to their school heritage has a for how to identify race theory. we have put together a supplemental parental guide for this report for parents. if they are going these sites what they need to in advance and what they expect. so but overall, i think this is part of a large project to tear down our history and that we need continue to push back. brenda, what about also making this political sense that people who visit these sites contacting their legislators, the governor of virginia and others just saying that, you know what's, going on here. you know go could you speak to this. you know, that's sort of those sorts of solutions. yeah, i think is of all if we

are going counter these measures, we need to recognize that this battle is being waged on multiple fronts and need to meet it on multiple. so if the national trust has a grassroots effort and there have 27 historical sites across the country, then we need to respond in kind. yeah, but maybe supplement these observations though, as someone who's been visiting these sites for well over 55 decades now, a little bit more. and who experience a great deal of frustration at the hands of tour guides who present to the public as experts when they're usually far from and who's also felt restraining hand of a wife saying now this is not the place i i do want to emphasize there's one level at which the retail shouldn't be confused with the organized assault, the culture, the retail experience is not

going to change. human beings are human beings and guides are going to be recruited or they're going to make terrible historical mistakes because their exposure to historical knowledge is, frankly, relatively thin. and we just need to acknowledge and understand it's not part of a greater. but organized assault is a different question. and i think that's what brant has done such a job of bringing our attention it that you can respond to institutionally, organizationally, politically and otherwise. but that means reaching out at level at which is making its impact that the rubinstein's you can't do much about they're going to spread their millions. but you can certainly encourage other people spread their millions to this society still works in that respect. paul do we have some online questions? yes, we do. some of our online viewers here is the market having any effect on these institutions?

it would seem to me that those wishing to historic homes are not the same people have an abiding interest in critical race. i would say some indication the mt. vernon gets about a million visitors per year. mt. cello, 500,000, and montpelier 125,000. so there is some indication that this could be for multiple reasons, but perhaps it's because people are looking to learn about the history. and mt. vernon is doing the best job of the three. dina, enjoy georgia. a former chairman of the national endowment for the arts, once came to heritage and gave presentation here, and he said conservatives, are greatly at fault because conservatives have abdicated the field history, popular culture, the entertainment film, etc. to the left. dana said that we conservative

are so obsessed with the politics of day, the red meat issues that elections government, administrative, state, the courts that we've yielded the field to left to do this colonization of which you speak. what can be done about this. well i certainly tend to agree with that to some degree that there has been i was speaking to someone earlier morning about abda session of concern with museum studies. for example, most of the people who are populating these institutions are being in formal programs of museum studies, but those don't show up at hillsdale or at many of the other institutions where people are otherwise being to enter the field. so one simple solution is simply to get into the business, and that's the implication of your question and i certainly would that other members of the panel on this.

okay, chris. okay. thank you very much. thank you for your report. brenda. so i completely agree with the the sense of ideological contagion. its rooted in envy and resentment is colonizing factually accurately. these this areas and that that is crazy. one of the things that strikes me is that there's sort of a tragedy to this as and in that what's being lost from the actual story of james for example, and some of those values. so if i'm a fifth grade teacher or, a fifth grader who recently went to montpellier or even a tour guide at montpellier, who's not really informed, what are of those things that should be said that,

haven't been said? can you guys just i know that's big question, the american founding, but could you speak to some of those? those are lost values that are not being taught. yeah. i think on this score to question to, you know, there was a slave owner's constitution on this continent. it was the confederate constitution that was explicitly written into the text of their constitution. did not have that. and slavery not mentioned even with regard to those three clauses and progressives of course have tried to broaden that to the entire constitution as tainted by slavery. now for quite some time. so i think that's right on. what should we say about our founding and to this claim of the slave constitution also i think really put the finger on this. he says the offending are not quoting the founders. they're not telling story. and we have seen a what we might is a parallel effort going on.

at the same time in the country where people are increasingly to the primary documents and encouraging teachers to correct a program to teach the primary documents. you can lots subvert human understanding in the face of truth. and if we are really expanding resource to the primary sources, to what the founders themselves had to say, it will be an inoculation of, if you will, against kind of poisons that are otherwise being injected into the culture. one thing i would add to that is that one effect of the 1619 project and all the different we're talking about today is that it has caused a number of historic ones to go back and start asking these types of questions, including historians who would be conventionally regard added as progressives. right. so a good example will be someone like gordon wood. so for example, when 1619 project came out and was making all these different about

american history. he responded he and a group, other historians who would not be considered conservative just responded and said this is simply not true. there was just factual errors. there is clearly an ideological taint to the way that these things are being produced. so one of the good things, if you is the side effect that's happened, is it's causing us to engage these questions of the founding, looking at things like primary documents and understanding coming to a greater of the complexity of these things. history is complex. it's true. there's this truth to history, this truth. we need to revive and bring to the fourth of discussion. but we also need to understand that human beings are complicated creatures and they make mistakes. they sometimes rationalize things, etc. but the work of good historians is to uncover all that so that we can see the full historical of these things, as opposed to the mythologies, whether they

are of mythologies of of the left or even mythologies of the right as well when it comes to the founding and that whole period of time for the the fifth grade student or the fifth grade teacher. it's probably too heavy a lift to say go read federalist papers, but it's maybe not so heavy a thing to raise the question of how do people govern? what is that sets this apart from my wanting what i want and taking it versus learning to live with. my fellow fifth grade classmates. being able to tell the fifth graders, let's give some fathers to what a fair way would be. pull ourselves together and govern ourselves. there the seed of the idea that will lead you to through the works of madison or broken and easily explained or a a concept

that, as i understand it, is nowhere to be found. visiting presidential house. no, peter, at least take the occasion to say someone who reads with great pleasure. your wonderful missives. i would find the federalist papers still more accessible to the fifth grader and the fifth grade teacher, mrs.. but obliged strongly defend the proposition. they can read the federalist papers. and of course i published a book making that argument and encourage teachers all the time take it up because it is really not to inaccessible as people imagine it to be. but i do want to underscore that. final question about your good life. someone already made this perhaps summary, made this observation, but to me, the fundamental filter that that historians nowadays of the mean seem to look at things just through the marxist filter. it's one of oppressor and oppressed, which, as we know,

that's not reality. all live with cooperation, not oppression. right i mean, you don't get through life, most of us without, you know, by oppressing people. so it's a really flawed view of reality that they put to history. can i quickly comment on that? so the classic example of what you're about is the the new history of capital ism, which is drives the 1619 project. if you look the references in the new york times pieces, particularly the one written about the economy, which was written by a sociologist by the way, interestingly, the references that are made to this new of capitalism, which if you look at the way it analyzes things, the way the authors write, what they say, what they believe in, what they leave out, etc. , i can't think of any other way to describe it then as neo-marxist. and, you know, we're often afraid to say, well that's that's where this is coming from. but i think in this case, it's undeniable. i think you're quite right about

that. no i would add to this something that perhaps we ought to bear in mind in light of question of human nature is such that the natural disposition for people is be at ease, not to be under stress or intention. it is much easier to be at ease in loving than it is in making war that is right in militaristic, it takes a lot of effort to sustain willingness to fight. it doesn't take a lot of effort, sustain the willingness not to fight. so the underlying human condition, the natural sentiments of human beings are on our side in this regard because these movements are movements designed to prepare people to, fight to work against their nature. if we that we have the specific that will respond to it in addition to, the economic angle i would add that we really need to a choice of a resentment based approach versus one that

is based in gratitude. and one. and that does not mean that we ignore the short of the path but it does mean we deliberately turn towards the miraculous and the constitution is miracle of philadelphia and the declaration a stumbling block to tyrants everywhere and those are our accomplishments as americans. those are and there should be a proper sense of pride in those accomplishments and gratitude not only for this founding, but the generations of americans. they came after that moved us towards a fuller realization of those principles. and if you take that if you take that proper pride and that recognition of those accomplishments, all you leave is resentment and grievance. and that is what you are robbing people of. and that sort of approach never

made anyone happy or kind or gracious so it's an assault not only on the country but on the individual dignity. wonderful as that. and i think those are fitting remarks to conclude our work, i think thank you for your report. a tale of three presidential homes and of the members of our panel. bill sam and peter, thank you all for joining us and also for our online

if you're familiar with circuit, if you've been to our conference, you know that judge mcewen basically do anything. i was maybe i was hoping she could answer some of my questions about dubaku or that the fbi did not. you probably are not surprised that she's a member of the american academy of arts and sciences and you're probably not surprised that she's written a book. she's written a book about justice douglass and his interest and commitment to the environment, which seems appropriate here in big sky. and the name of her book is