and this is a special occasion for this program is the sesquicentennial of the american civil war, and my grandfather was a baptist preacher always said if you take a topic, you ought to wrestle with it a little bit so people know you remember. i will say this, when the sesquicentennial took place in 1961, i was in atlanta, georgia, i was picketing and going to jail and being tear-gassed and busy trying to register a few people to vote without getting everybody killed. so i don't have any memory of the sesquicentennial, what was going on about the discussion. i was busy trying to carry out some of the promises that were embodied in the 14th amendment that was passed after the civil war. and let me also observe that as we begin the 150th celebration of the american civil war

there's an african-american president of the united states named barack obama who was elected with 66 million votes at a time when there were only 19 million african-americans registered to vote in the united states. and i tell people sometimes if all 19 million of us lived in chicago and could vote three times the way they do in chicago, mccain still would've beat us. so obama had to reach across the aisle and find a lot of people to vote for him in order for him to get elected president of the united states. he did what harriet tubman did with the underground railroad, what frederick douglass did, what the african-american soldiers did when they joined the union army. they joined to help make this country a better place. so i wanted to say that in the beginning because i think that right there puts a very important opening on how we begin this discussion about the sesquicentennial. time has changed in the united

states and changed for good reasons, changed for the better, and i think the -- the moral of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice. i want to say as we start, and let me back up for a minute and say the african-american civil war museum located here in washington, d.c. has african-americans who joined president lincoln in the civil war to help him save the nation, keep it united under one flag and end slavery. the monument lists the names of 2,500 hispanic surnames. these names were mixed up with these african-american soldiers. there's also 7,800 names of the officers, white officers who commanded these soldiers. african-americans couldn't be officers, those names were listed among the regiment and one was shaw that you know from the movie "glory" the neighborhood where the monument

exists was named for shaw. the shaw junior high school over around the corner is the lincoln theater. over there is the william garrison school. so this whole neighborhood is related to what happened after the civil war. but i wanted to point that out to say that this monument now represents more of what the neighborhood looks like. it's an integrated monument with the names of whites, african-americans and latinos and looks like the coalition that helped president obama get elected president of the united states. now, we opened a new exhibit in july which now includes a number of things. among them is a bill of sale. and i think mr. ayers referred to this, for a woman sold for $1,000 back in 1854, and if you put $1,000 times 3.9 million slaves which is the number

during the civil war, that's almost $4 billion in 1860 money. slavery's never going to end without a war. it's never going to end without a war. it's too important to the american economy. one writer said it represented 72% of the economy in the country that includes not just the value of the slaves themselves, but the cotton they pick and corn and tobacco and these things get put into commerce and the banks that finance it and the insurance companies that insure it. the whole economy's tied up with this thing. so you get this slavery tied up in civil war now. one of the things i brought with me today, i brought the declaration of secession from state of south carolina, which i'd like to read sometimes and i thought i'd take a couple minutes of my time to read that today because south carolina says this war -- they started the war. and by the way, if a fight were to break out in this room, as soon as the police get here and settle everything, the first question would be who started this? that's right.

president lincoln didn't start this war. as a matter of fact, you know -- south carolina seceded from the union. president lincoln hadn't been sworn in yet. they seceded in 1860, president lincoln doesn't get sworn in into march. as a matter of fact, when the war started, when frederick douglass declared the war started, frederick douglass said, i wish the north had started this war. in other words, i was there -- cared enough about our freedom so they would have started this war. since they didn't care to start this, david blight, he said thank god for the slaveholders. that's right, somebody had to start this. you can't finish what you don't start. somebody had to start this. and so he said somebody had to start this. and harriet tubman said god ain't going to let president lincoln win until he does the right thing. now south carolina started this war and they say that the constitution of the united states in the article provides as follows. this was south carolina's article of secession. no persons held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof escaping to another shall in consequence of any law

or regulation therein be charged from service of labor but shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. and then they go on to say that if that provision -- as a matter of fact, let me finish the next sentence. this stipulation was so material to the compact -- now they're talking about the compact that forms this nation, that without it that compact would not have been made. the greater number of the contracting parties held slaves and they had previously in their estimate of the value of such of the stipulation of making the condition in the government of this territory seceded by virginia, which now composes the state north of the ohio river. now they go on to talk about -- they name these states that are violating the slave act, which is not allowing them to go into their territories to collect their slaves when their slaves run away.

they name these states. they say the state of maine, new hampshire, vermont, connecticut, rhode island, new york, all these northern states that are violating that section of the constitution, which they signed on to when they join the union. and south carolina says we didn't leave the union, the union left us. and therefore -- now, i don't know, david blight, how historians can read this and say the civil war was not about slavery. i don't know what they were reading. because if i found it, you all can find it. and texas was even more ridiculous. texas said slavery was important to white civilization. that's right. mississippi said we can't pick this cotton. it's too hot. you've got to have black people down here. so first, before we can -- so the civil war was about slavery. the people who started it said it was about slavery. they seceded from the union,

they formed this. now, secondly, there would come a time when lincoln would realize he can't win this war without doing something about slavery. and he used the instrumentality of the emancipation proclamation. he used the extraordinary powers of the president which the president has when somebody declares war because these states had formed their own country and they had committed treason against the united states. he uses the emancipation proclamation september 22, 1862 to take effect january 1st. now having been a council member here in d.c. for a number of years, when you pass a law, you have to give people time to adjust to the new law. so september until january 1 is almost 100 days. and he says to the south, if you put down your arms, come back into the union by january 1, things will be as they were. what does as they were mean? you can keep your slaves. if you don't do that by january 1, paragraph six says persons of suitable conditions will be brought into the union army.

i was born in georgia, and i grew up there, i was in the civil rights movement there and went from there to mississippi a few years. i think it's one of the reasons why my brother in the south have so much trouble accepting this. because the states had more african-americans living there than they had white people. and this emancipation proclamation only applied to those states that were in rebellion. only applied to those states. so what does that paragraph mean? persons of suitable conditions brought into the union army? i'm going to arm the slaves. so on the wall of the memorial there's 200,000 names, 150,000 of them were slaves when the war started. 150,000, 3 out of 4 slaves were the war started. not only did president lincoln need these people to win the war, and there was a great story about one of them robert smalls

who starts out in the state of virginia, i mean south carolina, he starts out working for the confederacey. he was hired out by his owner to contract laborer working for the confederates. he wasn't being paid, his owner was being paid. he was going to take the ship and turn it over to the union army. he becomes a soldier with the union army. when the war's over, he goes back home as a war hero, gets elected and eventually to the united states congress as a congressman. so those people with a myth about african-americans joining the confederate army, they weren't about to arm them because they know what happened to robert smalls, right? robert smalls not only shows up at the union army, he shows up with his own weapon. his ship. and he becomes -- he shows up with his own weapon. he brought his own weapon to the fight. not only did he bring his knowledge, but he brought his weapon to the fight. so not only does president lincoln need these african-americans to help him

win this war -- and by the way, by the time they put richmond under siege in virginia during the civil war, general grant assembles the 25th army corps, which is 25,000 african-american soldiers. they're part of the siege of richmond and that's the 25th army corps chasing robert e. lee on his way to appomattox. they flank him on the southwest side and it's that southwest side he's trying to break out of there to go out and join johnston in north carolina. 25,000 african-american soldiers. at that point lee had fewer than 20,000 men in his own army. that's right. one writer said, david blight, that general grant pulled these soldiers back so robert e. lee wouldn't have to suffer the indignity of surrendering to an african-american.

that's the beginning of the healing. first you win the war, now you've got to win the peace so you don't want to offend the dignity of the south's number one. well, sometimes we can manipulate history to get it to go the way we want to. and i think people thought we were never going to learn how to read these documents. let me make one other point about this. and that is that -- i said not only president lincoln needed these soldiers in order to win the war, but also needed them to win the peace. if you read over further into the south carolina secession document, each one of these states calls themselves into assembly, official meetings of their state and they rescinded the articles of confederation in meeting in order to cause what they call disunion, to leave the union. how are you going to get those states back into the union? you've got to pass the 15th amendment.

the only loyal people down in those states that are going to vote to rejoin this union are the african-americans. the defeated confederates and that are disenfranchised because when you commit treason against the united states, you lose your citizenship. if any of you all are thinking about that, you better rethink it. if any of you are thinking about joining that candidate talking about texas seceding from the union, don't do that, you'll lose your citizenship and then the commander in chief of the united states army now is barack obama. you think abraham lincoln did something down there -- so i just wanted to share that story with you because part of what we have to do is get the stories straight about how this all happened. the congress passes the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution. the 13th amendment ends slavery, the 14th amendment makes african-americans citizens of the united states. you have to pass that and of course you know we get following that in 1896 the ferguson

decision that says that you can have equality -- you can have freedom and citizenship where you have what they call absolute equality among citizens in a separate but equal society. i was born in that separate but equal society, and it was that i was fighting in in 1961 when they had the sesquicentennial of the emancipation of the civil war and i'm happy to be able to sit here today as we start to discuss the 150th anniversary of the civil war at a time when there is an african-american president of the united states that proves not only that the war was important and ending slavery and african-americans played a pivotal role in that

but it was also important in keeping this country united under one flag. and i'm glad to know we live in a country where we have a whole robust discussion even today about the direction this country is going in and we're all now at a point where we can all vote and by voting express our opinion about the direction this america ought to go in. this land that we love. and so i'm very pleased to be able to join in this discussion step, leap forward for what we have seen here in america over the last 100 years. as i said earlier, this road to progress i think is a road we're all traveling on. i think it's really -- it can't be turned back. i think we've gone too far forward to turn it back. and not only is america a country we can be proud of here on these shores, but people all over the world now look up to this country for leadership and dedication and direction. and i'm pleased to say that we have worked out our differences here enough now that we at least got a chance, at least we feel

we have as much of a chance as anybody else in making this country the country we all dreamt it would be. thank you very much, and i look forward to your questions. [ applause ] >> a great response to the brilliance of these presentations. it's not easy for me. i do feel bound, however, to observe that this panel of five people includes people who were born in the states of virginia, georgia, ohio, and massachusetts. i think my memory is correct on that. you're in michigan? well, that's even worse. [ inaudible ] that's right. the fact that we're talking about these things is very important, but even more important is the fact that we identify to some real extent with the places of our

upbringing that is especially a characteristic of southerners so called provincial mind. as i think about the historians who brought this meeting together, though, i feel that i would like to recommend that more of us americans read their works in such a way as to let our public rhetoric match better the historical conclusions of those works. i have some suggestions of some issues or some parameters along with we ought to talk better in this society about the civil war. the first had already been covered pretty well, namely, respect for the cost of the war to both sides. i sometimes have to remember that of the 620,000 men who lost their lives in the civil war on the battlefield or afterwards,

some 60% of them were northerners. the north paid the cost in a way that a lot of southerners do not quite acknowledge. this came home to me not so long ago, well, just before i came to new york city to live in a talk i gave in a sunday school class. i said in the process of talking about the prayer that christians like to pray, forgive us our debts, maybe is it time for atlanta to forgive the sins of general sherman against the city of atlanta? and i think you would not believe how strong a unanimous chorus of "no" came forth from that nice sunday school class. atlantans remember their city was destroyed. not always in the northern memory is that destruction acknowledged very much. i can assure you that southerners remember that.

and, as all of us remember those things in our past that were most hurtful, not quite so understood, especially in the southern memory, are some of the statistics that had been annunciated in this panel. if 70% of america's wealth was invested in slaves and in cotton plantations, when both plantations and the slave status were destroyed, a lot of wealth went down the drain. to say that it was well lost is what very few of us in the south have been trained to say. and it's high time we did say it. and, in that respect, the second thing i'd like to think we need more respect for, and that is the benefits of northern victory in the war. one of my favorite people is that veteran of the confederate

that veteran of the confederate it was said in his obituary that he had often been known to remark that he was glad the north won the war because it saved our union. now, that's a kind of a far western north carolina view because there were a lot of republicans out there during the civil war. but to be glad for defeat is not easy. some have said that learning what defeat is is really a kind of a southern specialty, a specialty that i think has a lot of pert nens with this country's wrestle with the van war. to be glad that your opponent won the war is not an easy thing to come by. the problem with this memory for some of us in the south is we're

not glad enough for others who won the war in a different dimension. d is these 4 million slaves. i have to say as a native virginian i was disappointed in the governor of my native state who last year declared it was time to have a month to honor the confederate armys. i do not remember there was anything in his declaration that suggested how glad virginians out to be that the victory of the north and the war among other things have put black legislatures and now black legislation that ultimate output was along that line. i look forward to the time in which a governor of virginia on january the 1st, 2013, will celebrate the emancipation

proclamation on behalf of all virginians. that it seems to me would be a way of respecting the rebenefits of an outcome of the civil war. i like very much what president said about the city of richmond where three years of my graduate education took place at that other union theological seminary. richmond is a city which is on the way toward acknowledging its history with the help of some people who are in this room. perhaps the best symbol of that that i know of is the statue of arthur ashe on monument avenue which was put up after a great political local discussion. he's in the -- on that monument avenue, the last statue in a long line of confederate generals standing up there on their horses, too. it was not those confederate generals that liberated the

ancestors of arthur ashe. it was ulysses s. grant and company that liberated those ancestors. that statue now stands there is all together fitting, especially for underlying the ambiguity of a great deal of our memories of the civil war as a southerner. that's another thing i wish we could get more into our public rhetoric. and that is honest ambivalence and willingness to be ambiguous about those loyalties that shaped this country from its past. another one of my favorite southerners was that nameless soldier, whom shelby foote identifies as being part of long street's army, marching along and the soldier was tagging along at the end of the column.

and as he trudged there and long street came up on his horse with some compassion and say "do you think you'll make it, soldier"? and he replies "yeah, i hopes i'll make it but i hopes to god i'll never loves another country." i must tell you there are times in my own life as an american citizens that i wonder about that, i wonder about that at my basic infantry raining at fort mcclellan, alabama, known as a general that may not have known too well but he dragged his feet also when it came really to making war on richmond. at any rate, that we have some reasons for ambivalence is for me a very important part of learning from history. learning from historians like the ones on this panel. i have to say that i have to

admire what general grant said right after he had signed that end of the war with general lee. in his journal he said "i felt sad and depressed at the downfall of this foe who had fought so long and so valiantly and had suffered so much for a cause that was i believe one of the worst for which a people ever fought." most northerners have no problem believing that it was one of the worst causes that was ever fought for. not a whole lot of northerners have that same kind of compass for the people who gave their lives and much of their wealth to a cause that was not worth sacrificing all that much for. a again i think american history has enough defeats in it.

so that learning that you can have compassion for the people who fought against you but you may have to decide that the fight was not worth fighting for. along the same line it seems in our public ret wriek need a much greater appreciation of the mood of eye roon ronnie. it is an irony that arthur ashe is standing there with his tennis racket on and it's also an irony that we are meet hearing in a city of washington, d.c. which is the subject of what joseph ellis calls the most important dinner party in the history of the united states the party i atwhich james madson, ellington and madison met around jefferson's dinner table to see if they could key side in 1790 whether or not the federal government should be charged or permitted to assume the war debts can have the revolution.

and that was feared, especially by virginia politicians because they didn't want the federal government to be that centrally involved in the economics of the new nation. jefferson and madison urged the new national capital be located where it is now on the banks of the potomac. if you look at that right now, that's full of irony. joseph ellis said by selecting the location, the congress decided to separate the political and financial capitals of the united states, washington and new york the exciting synergy of institutional life and orall-purpose national metropolis, new york, was deemed less important than the dangerous corruptions likely to afflict the nexus of politicians

and financiers. if you don't find the irene of that one in 2011, you haven't been reading the newspapers or reading them. that kind of agreement, of course jefferson thought would be a way whereby as ellis puts it, they would not abandon the new government of the united states but they would capture it, like nut capital it would become an extension of virginia. which was both virginia and massachusetts ambitions for the future of this country. well, irony may not be the most popular mood for political rhetoric, but it seems to me we will find a lot of it in history if we believe it. next to last, it seems to me we need a lot more respect in this country for compromise and especially the difference

between the compromisable and the uncompromisable. i think you could write a great deal of political history of this country on the themes of conflict and the connections of liberty, justice and peace. very often when some kind of conflict happens in the rhetoric and in the legislation of this country, it's the partisans of justice versus the partisans of liberty. my teacher at yale used to say when you look at the history of the supreme court, you wonder whether the national bird ought to have been the eagle. he said the better national bird might be the duck because ducks waddle and the supreme court down through history has always waddled between liberty and justice and somehow you got to put those two together. you can hardly do it without