that it really wasn't right, it wasn't the right policy. this had no force, but it sort of an advisory memo. he did this. then he sent his wife, eleanor where the march was being organized and had her meet with the leaders. and she did her best to try to persuade them that roosevelt was serious about the memorandum. and they said no way. we're not going to change it. we've got our plans. we're going to go by the white house and assemble at the lyndon memorial and we are going to show the people of this country and the nation and the world that african-american citizens are not treated with equality. and we're doing it. thanks for meeting with us.

bye. so then roosevelt decided that he had to meet with them. that this was the only way they were going to get action. and he did. and it was quite a meeting. it was an historic meeting. not only the president was there, but the secretaries of the war and the navy, all the major officials involved with the defense program, and a. phillip randolph, and walter white, the president for the national association for colored people. even with this sense of gathering all these important busy people, in june, in late june of 1941, those of you who know military history will know this is a period in which the nazi government is in the process of planning to break

their pakt with the soviet union and is on the brink of invading the soviet union. this is a period in which poland has just fallen. this is a crucial moment in the war. and all these men are called into the office to meet with these two men and roosevelt starts by trying to tell stories and jokes. and randolph has to interrupt them and say that, you know, we're here to talk about the problem of negros' participation in the armed services and the defense industries. so roosevelt tried to say you know, i'm opposed to this. and he started listing his reasons. he said that the march would make other people think that the negros are seeking to exercise force to compel the government to do certain things.

with their silent march and their assemblage at the lincoln memorial. he did express concern that it may cause race riots, and he complained his final complaint in this series was that if the negro march was helded, he was afraid that soon the irish and jewish people would also take to the streets of washington. so in this series of complaints, he rehearsed the traditional arguments against why the people should not use the streets of washington for their political causes, that it was an inappropriate use of pressure, that it might inspire violence, and worst of all it might enexpire everybody to protest washington. randolph said so what? we're respectable, we're

dignified, we have a good cause. we're coming. so then roosevelt tried to figure out what the threat was. he turned to randolph and said how many people do you plan to bring. and randolph said in his deep voice, 100,000, mr. president. and roosevelt turned to walter wright who he trusted more, and asked walter, how many people really will march? tell me the really story. white replied that he expected no less than 100,000. they stared at each other. and then roosevelt started to negotiate. and he committed to put the force and weight of his office behind the effort to secure jobs

for qualified negros. and he left by proposing they create a committee, which didn't sound too good at first, but they managed to hammer out an agreement in which this committee, the fair employment practices committee created by the executive order, would actually have the power to discipline companies who discriminated in defense contracts. so, in this moment, in this key moment, this march on washington most certainly did make a difference. but it came at the cost of canceling it. once it was signed, on june 25th, randolph proceeded to fly to the meeting of the national association for color people and announce that the march was off. a call was made out on the radio

stations that touched most african-americans, and they called off the march, the negro march on washington. this march would prove to be extraordinarily effective, it used the rhetoric of citizenship, it used an international -- threat of international embarrassment, and it used a legitimate claim to put pressure on the president. and it also used the capital spaces. it threatened to use the capital spaces in a way that would prove especially embarrassing to the united states on the eve of war. the notion of african-americans marching peaceably up pennsylvania avenue and then assembling at the lincoln memorial, using that space to display their place in the

nation when that place was so treated unequally, was incredibly powerful. but could it be recreated? and this is what i will conclude with, is to think some about could that happen again, that special power? there were special circumstances, it was the eve of war. it was a situation in which there were grounds to negotiate. it was a situation in which you had extremely savvy organizers who were willing to play a very tough game. and in its wake, in some ways, i think that potential was no longer as possible. and if we think about the 1963 march just briefly, and some of the characteristics of it, we can think about why that

potential became less powerful. on one hand, one thing that became clear is that future presidents did not want to be put in this position. and they decided that would be better to not get so concerned about any potential demonstration, that they would need to go to such efforts to force its cancelation. so they got much better at figuring out whether or not such marches would result in real threats. and you can see the development in the wake of this march and over the 1940s and 50s of much more sophisticated plans on the part of police forces, the military, the various different officials and groups with authority over this capital on how to respond to marches. the other part was that that legacy, the legacy of the threat of making a march powerful

because it had so many people, that conversation about 100,000 people, became an increasingly part of future marches. we know about how many people you get to come to your march becomes often the most important part of the discussion, and you could see that clearly in the planning of the 1963 march on washington. they wanted to be big. they were committed to being big. they made claims that they were going to be big. and they were big. but if you want to be big, you've got to do some things that make it more difficult to have that kind of confrontation, that immediacy. one, the march on washington for jobs and freedom was partially designed to put pressure on congress for the civil rights

bill. but they realized once they started organizing it that their initial idea that they would have it as soon as they started debating the civil rights bill in congress, was going to prove difficult. because you wouldn't know what day that would happen. so you have to pick a date. you can't just have a march on any day and spektd 100,000 people to show up that quickly. at lease not in 1963. it may prove that four weeks' planning is possible, but not in 1963, but not for a march that involves integrated both blacks and white into the march. and they also, in order to get that turnout, that had to be determined to be paceful. and in this they turned to close cooperation with the kennedy administration to ensure it. and that meant it took away that element of surprise and independence that the earlier

organizers had. the result was the forging in my mind, and i use that word as what it should mean, a word forging is something that is hard to do. you have to forge metal, you have to bring things together. and that's what organizers over the course of the sunttory did in making the tradition of marching on washington. but in forging a tradition, you also give up some things. you give up that surprise factor, if you want to be big and peaceful. you give up that sense of radicalism that inspired some of the earlier marches. and you also have the obscure

and somewhat difficult to deal with fact that they now are seen as so traditional, that almost anyone can on the surface accept them. i've been on a number of call-in shows about my book, and people call up and say things like, well, you know, i get it. you know, it's okay these antiwar protesters are fine, they've got their right to march. i'm not going to argue with you about that. but they've got this problem or that problem. and when kond leez sa rice was asked is the administration concerned about these protests, are they doing anything to stop these protests, she said oh, no. oh, no. people have the right to protest. it's not a problem. we don't mind it. so there can be that air of nonconcern that did not have that same -- but i would still

argue that this tradition is still powerful, and this custom, this method of political participation is extraordinarily important. over the years of protest, people have learned to make washington into a people's capital. they have made public spaces, including the mall, many of the areas around the capital, to a great extent, pennsylvania avenue, spaces that almost any group can gain access to if they're willing to be peaceful and not too disruptive. and this is a space that can be used for a variety of political purposes, by making it something that is accepted, groups from a far greater range of political persuasions now march on washington than ever would have

been imagined in the 1930s or the 1940s. the variety of groups. and they can be used both to build movements, to confirm movements and to inspire others to think seriously about political causes. and those others are sometimes the person standing next to you in a demonstration, or the person watching you on television. and sometimes the president and sometimes the citizens of another country who take inspiration from the washington citizens or the citizens of america expressing their views on an issue. so i think that over the years, it has become a tradition, but it's a tradition that still has the potential to influence our country and ourselves. so thank you.

[ applause ] we've got time for some questions. i would just ask that people speak up. >> i will field them and do my best with them. >> yes, i happen to have remember the march on washington very very clearly. something you said just brought this to my mind. on the day of the march, downtown washington, with the exception of the police, was absolutely desserted. businesses, everybody closed up. there was such a fear that violence would break out. my goodness, it was the most peaceful thing you could imagine. subsequent marches on washington, i don't know whether

local business people are getting easier to handle this, but they don't seem to close up and leave anymore. >> no. i think that was -- i mean, there was an element in which there was a whole fear atmosphere surrounding the march on washington, despite these efforts on the part of both the kennedy administration and especially the organizers to assure everyone there was going to be no civil disobedience, there was going to be no disruption. but the city commissioners were quite concerned about it, so they actually passed of an unheard of resolution banning the sale of alcohol on the day of the march. they literally seemed to feel like -- i mean they seemed to think that this group of african-americans, forgetting that many whites were also going to participate, were going to come down to washington, get drunk and cause a riot. so they actually -- since prohibition, it's the only time they did this. so there was an element of fear.

and kennedy, despite being, praising the march, pro claiming it was part of a great tradition in american protest, which was a bit of historical recreation at the time, not completely accurate, he did also arrange for troops to be moved up closer to the capitol and to ensure that there were adequate police force. the police men were bored during the day. the most exciting to them was they all got food poisoning because they didn't control the temperature their sandwiches. but other than that they didn't have very much to do expect direct traffic. >> my question is about the mall. it's become a really preeminent place, public space. and people have chosen it as the podium for their marches.

but also in very recent years it's been changing quite drastically, as you know and you cite in your book, the world war ii memorial is going to divide the lincoln to the washington. but also the park services had to restrict demonstrations in certain areas because the memorials are roped off as kind of sacred zones. and now with security measures, the capitol essentially becoming closed off. pennsylvania avenue, there's an article in today's paper, but i'm particularly concerned about how you see the national mall really having achieved this great place as a public forum, but now it seems to be kind of slowly being broken down. >> yeah. i'm equally concerned about that process, and i'm very concerned about the seeming infrance

general of the park service on these issues, the repeated requests to consider the legacy of the use of the mall as they plan for these new monuments and earlier proposals had clearly stated there were going to be no more monuments. that it was time to stop this before the mall got too full. and one of the things that i think is important is to understand the history of the mall in thinking about that. the mall was originally designed to be an open space, though it wasn't designed for the people. it was designed for the military. it was supposed to be where they would parade and practice their drills. it became a park, well, it was a swamp and then a park. and then only in the 1930s did they clear it. and as soon as they cleared it, you start to see it used for these big events. so people quickly grasped its

power, when you think about the moment in which marion andersons to sing before a segregated audience at the daughters of the american revolution. she -- they turn to lincoln memorial, and they're able to have a huge number of people gather there for a wonderful concert. that is both a political statement and a moral statement at the same time. and over time, the negro march on washington people are going to use that same tradition, later groups come, use the mall over and over again and really try it and see its potential as a space. and political leaders become tolerant too. they -- this whole regulation that prohibits use of a capital space is not overturned by the supreme court, until 1972. but in the meantime, even quite

surprising figures had allowed marchers to use the west side of the capitol to have their speakers on so they could use the rest of their expanse for their demonstrations. so for the practice and what people clearly wanted to use, the mob quickly claimed this space. and without preserving that, i mean, part of the purpose of the national park service is to preserve historical legacies. and yet they're seeming not to. they are going to now put a little marker where martin luther king gavis "i have a dream" speech, although i'm not sure that's necessary because we see that over and over again, including fourth graders, which is not the worst thing, but it's pretty token. i would have much rather made the space clear as a memorial to him than to have a plaque, so --

yes. >> do you believe that in today marches on washington is more just a way for interest groups to advertise their beliefs and that today they have lost its potency to create change? >> i think it really is a different style of creating change. so, yes, you could call them interest groups. of course any group that can manage to pull people together and do something together have a common interest. it's a term that sometimes is thrown around as a bad word. i personal think that's part of democracy, there are going to be people who have common interest and they come together and they want to influence things. and they -- i think they are used sometimes to affirm themselves and to advertise their cause. but that's part of the nature of having a political debate that

includes a wide range of people in american politics. if you had -- if the only people that are allowed to speak, like the people at the time of narra think that would range the debate in country. so that would be a loss to the nature of the working of american democracy. that's not to say that i can't, you know, sometimes wonder, you know. i mean, working on this book and watch on it tv that in 1993 or something like that, that the association of travel agents -- well, no, the travel agents were marching on washington. now, maybe i don't take travel agents seriously enough, and i ought to revise my feeling of them as an unrepresented, mistreated group. but, you know, they were having their annual conference, they didn't like some new law that was like regulating this and that.

it's fine with me. i don't mind. that march, why it showed up on providence tv, i have no idea. i think there was some angle i didn't get, but perhaps would not attract that much attention and i'm not concerned concerned about that problem. so i think that that's the way i look at it. other people can call them a waste of money and move on to a different type of political participation. it's not for everyone. yes, jim? >> the biggest march of them all, and another scary one, for people that -- the million-man march. i wonder if you have comments about that, thoughts about it. >> yeah. i mean, i sort of change my mind on the million-man march, to be quite frank. at a time, i was quite cynical about it. i thought, not out of just sort

of intuitive, negative louie farr farrahcon thought. he did not give a speech that equalled earlier speeches at the time. but because i was like sort of stuck in this notion of, oh, well, if you're going to have a march, you ought to have a set of demands, and it ought to be related to federal policy. and, you know, let's get real here. i mean, what's the point? but when i thought about it, and when i've seen how it's -- it really seemed to resonate with the people who came, how it inspired other marchers, how it inspired other marches, i really started to come to have a greater acceptance of this notion that part of the point of marching can be to do a public display of an identity that is not portrayed as people think it should be in american culture. i think there's much to be said that is similar to the promise keepers. that the promise keepers had this sort of reputation of being this sort of -- among some

people, of being a sort of group that met in sports arenas and just were doing this muscular christianity that didn't have any legitimacy. of and showing themselves in public, no larger charging a huge admission fee, letting everyone come gave them a different portrayal. and i felt the same way about the million-man march. it opened up an organization, the nation of islam, that had been closed. and it may not -- i don't think it necessarily changed the nation of islam, but it changed, i think a lot of ways that african-american men felt about each other and the way they were portrayed in the press. and helped inspire subsequent marches that seemed to be very powerful for their participants. >> the last question suggests something i think is pertinent, looking at this particular participation, maybe politics in general, and that is that there

are perhaps two ack axes present in then analysis, one i demonstrate oriented, we have a list of goals that point to our agenda. and the other is the extensional. here we are, we exist, others exist. those that observe see they exist. and i wonder if you can buy into those two axes and tell us something about how we can see that historically. that is, do you think they're just any given group out there would be we're on one side or the other, or is there a historical trip -- if i could tip my own hand, i haven't throughout about this as much as you. we're moving more towards the extensional. we are here. and of course, you may celebrate or lament. you could say it's just identity politics, gratuitous.

it's disconnected from the truth. [ inaudible ] or this is how movements develop. [ inaudible ] >> yeah, i'm not sure i can comment much more, because you've said my point so eloquently yourself. i think that is the way that i -- i think that the thing to just always appreciate is that there are -- one of the virtues of our country is to have a range of methods of political expression. we have elected officials who report to us and who we vote for and for whom we influence by -- in the poll, except for in the district of columbia, where you have no national representation. as i see on your license plates every day. but in the other sense that we have that form of political participation, we have the ability to write letters. we have the ability to form

groups. we have the ability to raise money. we have the ability now to have virtual marches on washington. and all those methods are available to yourself. you see. and some of then are about creating bonds of some darety together. if i look at the pictures i took when i went to pro choice rallies, part of it is about reunions with my friends from college. that's a common thing people do. they come from all over the country, and they see their friends. and they're reminded of their past and their future political lives. and then other people come, you know, and you see others, and you're like, wow, this is amazing. everyone always tells me these stories of how i came -- whether it's the march on washington or jobs or freedom or this or that march, i came all the way from here, and i just ran into this person. i hadn't seen them in years. and that's small politics, maybe. but it's big politics when it