separate classroom. it wasn't a separate classroom, but that was their representation of a separate classroom. and that's the conditions in which my mom actually was admitted to the oklahoma university law school. and she was admitted in the summer of 1949. and she said that she could not have survived that first summer class, had it not been for the white men in law school that helped her at that time. and i said men, because she was the only -- not only was she the only african-american at the law school at the time, she was also the only woman in the summer session in law school at that time. but the other students would take her outside under the shade trees where the laws did not apply, and they shared their notes with her, they shared their books with her, and helped her to get through that first summer session. and from that point on, she was on her own. she knew that after all of the effort that she had gone through to get into law school, all of the people who had contributed so much to enable to her to get into law school, she knew that once admitted, her job was to get out of law school.

but that was a point in time when it was all on her. and she carried a huge burden to try and successfully complete law school, and she did. she graduated in 1951, and august of 1951 and became a lawyer. and in 1992, then governor david walters wanted to kind of see the whole circle closed. and he appointed my mom to the board of regents, to the university of oklahoma. interestingly enough, even though african-americans have been an integral part of this nation, our history and our culture has not been incorporated into the mainstream of american history. and so it was the case in oklahoma. i grew up in oklahoma, not knowing a great deal about my mother's case. not -- i knew of the case, and i knew people treated her differently and special. but i was not getting that affirmation in high school. never studied about it in high school. but i knew about it. i grew up hearing my mom talk

about giants in her life, like thurgood marshall, like rascal dungy, like james nevrit. she said she had the first dream team of lawyers. and i grew up understanding how great these people were, but she was never bragging about herself. and i was a senior -- no, i was a freshman in college. and she asked me to accompany her to a funeral in tulsa, oklahoma. so i drove her to the funeral in tulsa, and it happened it be at the funeral of one of the lawyers on her legal team. he was the oklahoma resident attorney. and so we were standing outside of the church on our way into the church, and i heard my mom say, "thurgood." and then i saw mr. marshal turn around, and he said silt, which was her nickname and grabbed her and hugged her. and on the way back, i said, what was that all about? and then she told me what it was all about. so at that point, i really realized how significant that court battle was. up until then, she was just mom. i mean, she was -- and my

friends, you know -- have all been shocked in the last decade, because they have learned so much more about my mother since we have opened this museum here at the oklahoma historical society and talk about her here, and she gets a lot of recognition in oklahoma. but up until then, she was just mom. she made the best popcorn balls, and that's what everybody thought. that she was so special in that way. but now they have so much more appreciation for how important she is in american history. stay tuned all weekend long, as american history tv features oklahoma city, oklahoma. learn more about oklahoma city and c-span's local content vehicles at c-span.org/localcontent. next month, we'll feature wichita, kansas. you're watching american history tv, all weekend, every weekend. on c-span 3. brown university history professor gordon wood is the author of several books on america's founding fathers.

coming up he talks about his latest book "the idea of america: reflections on the birth of the united states." professor wood is interviewed by national review's senior editor richard brookhiser. the new york historical society hosted this hour-long event. for coming out on this grim night. but you had a great incentive which is to hear gordon wood. i'm going to begin by paying you, gordon, a round-about compliment. it's a little late, but a nice one. i had dinner with newt gingrich in 1994. and he had -- he had just become speaker elect. the republicans had just captured the house in the '94 election for the first time in 40 years. and at the dinner he talked -- the talk turned to what i was doing. i knew what he was doing.

i said i was writing a book on george washington. and without hesitation, he said you have to read "the radicalism of the american revolution" by gordon wood. so we all have our opinions on newt and sometimes he's with the public and sometimes he's not, but there he was entirely with the public. this is -- this is a provocative, interesting, delightful book so i want to get right to it. i want to start with my favorite sentence. my favorite sentence in the book which is the lead sentence of the third article. and i'm going to ask gordon, i want you to comment, explain what this means. you asked were the american revolutionaries mentally disturbed? >> well, actually there was an article, that was published i think about 1981 or so. this is a collection of essays that i have written over the last 45, 50 years.

and that was the opening to an article published in 1981. prior to that, a distinguished historian, i won't name him, he is quite distinguished, works at the library of congress, had written an article, saying, arguing that because they believed in conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere, they accounted for the actions of the british government in terms of a conspiracy on the part of the ministers that they were probably suffering from some kind of mental aberration. because by most scholars, by the 20th century, believe that people who believe in conspiracies are apt to be delusional. that's how he started that article. he later repudiated it in another article. but that's -- that was the opening. it gave me an opportunity to deal with this problem of why did conspiratorial

interpretations of history, of events, flourish in the 18th century? and my argument is that it had to do with the enlightenment. people were -- people wanted to hold people morally responsible for what happened. there's something to the idea of conspiracy, because if there is nobody planning what's happening, how do you make moral judgments? that's a serious problem that they faced. by the 19th century, we entered a hey gailian world, where a lot of people create events, none of which anybody intended. that was -- that's a modern insight. probably the most important insight, but it does create a kind of moral chaos. because we see it today with our banking crisis and financial crisis. we want to hold somebody responsible for that, but what if nobody is responsible? then it's kind of scary. that's the problem that conspiratorial thinking kind of resolves.

>> but there's an issue of tone in which you address in the other essays. anybody who reads the controversial literature of, you know, the 1790s right up through the war of 1812, they're just struck by you use the word frenzy. there's just a tone it seems so over the top. it's more than even what we have today. and why do you think -- i mean, these are intelligent men a lot of them. extremely so. >> right. >> and yet, there's no difference between the smart ones and the dumb ones. in terms of this tone. they all use it. why was that? >> the 1790s or the revolutionary era in general is not our politics. it's not our politics. it's the stakes were very high. the contest between the jeffersonians and the hamiltonians or the federalists were over the nature of the united states government.

what kind of government were we to have? was it to a european-type state with a standing army, modern bureaucracy and a war-making machine that could take on if european states? i think that's what hamilton had in mind. jefferson and madison had a very different vision of what the united states should be. so the stakes were as high as they could be and people were frightened. i believe that jefferson and madison feared that monarchy was going to be imposed on the united states, that we were going to become a monarchical regime. they said that. many historians dismiss that out of hand. that can't be true. they must be crazy. because it didn't happen, therefore they dismiss it. but i think you have to take seriously what people said in the past and there's enough evidence that both jefferson and madison were frightened that the federalists were trying to foist a monarchy on the country. >> and the federalistsed a their own fears. >> oh, definitely. the french -- the french were

going to invade, and that there was a fifth column within the country of jeffersonian radicals. jac jackabans, they called them, who were going to support the invasion. now, napoleon was invading other countries and turning them into republican puppet regimes. holland and the netherlands became the bavarian republic. he was doing the same in italy. it wasn't inconceivable that he could invade the united states. after all, the french had invaded earlier. this was a legitimate fear that the united states would be invaded and by french radicals, napoleon's army and that they would turn that into a puppet regime with the aid of the jeffersonian fifth columnists. that was a legitimate fear. it collapsed with the napoleon's defeat at the battle of denial where nelson defeated and

destroyed the navy. but up to that point, that's what led the federalists to take the steps they did. the alien setician act. the steps that in retrospect seem excessive to us and to some people at the time. evan hamilton thought the sedition act went too far. but you have to understand the fear that these people had. i think the goal of the historian is not to take sides decide, well, the federalists were right or the republicans were right. but rather to explain why people thought as they did and acted as they did. and in this case, there were legitimate fears on both sides. >> there's also at that time which must have added to the disquiet if not to the fear, there's a social change that's going on as people figure out what this new political system means and what it's -- its ramifications are. i love it when you or any historian highlights a story that is unfamiliar, and it may

involve a familiar person but it just throws a light on something. and one of my favorites in this book involves john rutledge who was a considerable figure in south carolina and at the constitutional convention. and then someone i had certainly heard of and i guess that's the point of the story, william thompson. this throws a light on that shift. >> right. 1784 i think it was, if i remember correctly, william thompson is a tavern keeper in charleston, south carolina. and john rutledge as perhaps you all know was about as high in the south carolinian aristocracy as you could be. >> and there was nothing higher than that. >> no, nothing higher than john rutledge. and he sends his slave on -- i think it was the fourth of july to see the fireworks, to go to thompson's tavern and go up on the roof of thompson's tavern to

see the fireworks. well, thompson turns the slave away. it's a female slave. no, you can't go up there. well, rutledge is outraged. and he goes then -- he's a major figure of course in the state legislature. he goes to the state legislature and he urges a bill to banish thompson from the state for this insult. well, thompson takes to the press, and he writes what can only be a typical american claim of equality against -- this kind of arrogance. and i think it expressed the kind of resentment that's coming out. for all places to take place in charleston shows that even there, where the structure of the society was much more hierarchical than it was, say, in boston, to have that kind of resentment expressed, typical

american resentment against the snobbing -- the snobbery, this arrogance expressed by rutledge. expressed by rutledge. outrageous by our standards that he should go to the state legislature and banish the man. but that's the -- i think a sign of an emerging egalitarianism that comes to really sweep the country. the north in particular. it existed everywhere, but in the north, it really runs wild and transforms the society. even before the jacksonian era. one of the things that i have learned from all this research i have done is the realization that by the first decade of the 19th century, you already have a kind of egalitarianism that's unanticipated by the founders. but the leaders. i mean, the idea that simon schneider who has no education whatsoever should become governor of pennsylvania. he's running for the office and he's really running. he's got a modern kind of organization and he's running. he's not standing for election.

he has no social credentials whatsoever. no education. he's called a clod hopper by his opponents including people who are jeffersonian republicans like thomas mckeen. he turns that into a badge of honorary. yes, i'm a clod hoppers in a society of clod hoppers and he rides that slogan to victory. that's 1808. that's early. that's before the jacksonian era. i think we have -- not realized how much society was changing, particularly in the north well before the jacksonian era. >> but there was one of the undertows you point out that's happening at the same time that the clod hoppers and the thompsons are winning, you made the point that as poor white men got the vote, free black men were losing the vote. >> well, that's one of the great ironies of democracy. as you began giving in new york

and in pennsylvania, as the jeffersonian republicans, you have to understand this is the beginnings of the democratic party, they soon became democratic republicans, and pretty soon become just the democrats. even by the first decade, of the 19th century, they're referred to as the dems. well in new york, pennsylvania, as the suffrage has extended to propertyless white males, there's pressure to take it away from freed black men who tended -- it isn't just racism, but the politics of the thing. these blacks had tended to vote federalist, and then later in the jacksonian era to vote wiig. >> why did they vote federalists? >> because they were the leaders in the abolitionist movement. hamilton was a firm believer in

ending slavery. the democratic republicans were slower, mainly because the base of the party came from the south. but -- so what's ironic, truly ironic, is that irish immigrants who are not yet citizens were give -- being given the vote in pennsylvania while at the same time blacks -- freed blacks who had been in the country for generations were having their suffrage taken away. so that was democracy so to speak, the dark side of democracy in that period. >> now, you know, this isn't all just history. a lot of this is news. i mean, we are seeing in the newspapers and on television right now it's in cairo. >> right. >> but it's very bloody in syria. we have this whole arab spring now it's autumn. it's been going on for months. and, you know, despots toppling

or tottering and it seems as if there could be a chance for more democracy. is there anything we or our example could say to those people in the streets by way of either instruction or warning? >> yeah. i think the arab spring, we're all excited about it. we're all excited about democracy. that word is thrown around very loosely. the americans, in particular i think james madison, perceived a problem by the 1780s that they hadn't anticipated. in the debate between john adams and his opponent, daniel leonard in 1775 in massachusetts, they had anonymous names, and a evangelist and massachusetts tensist. daniel leonard, a loyaliest, a

tory, raises the question of the possibility of the congress becoming tyrannical and he warns adams against putting too much stock in this continental congress because you're going to find that it can act oppressive. in an oppressive way. adams says that's crazy. people cannot tyrannize themselves. a democratic despotism, he says, is a contradiction in terms. well, ten years later, by 1785, lots of the founders were no longer so confident of this fact that a democratic despotism is a contradiction in terms. and one of the major issues of james madison, as rick knows better than i -- >> no, i don't -- >> -- is his effort to deal with this problem, as he put it, and he knows that there's a problem with the -- with the articles of confederation. but he -- that is not his primary focus. his primary focus is on what's happening in the states.

and he writes a very important essay called vices of the political system of the united states. working paper that lies behind his plans for the convention in philadelphia. and what he points out is that the state legislatures are running wild. and he focuses on the multiplicity, the mutability and the injustice of state laws. there were more state laws passed since the american revolution in 1776 he says than in the entire colonial period. it was an extraordinary proliferation of statutes. first of all, you had annual elections of the legislatures which was new outside of new england. you had in some cases 60% turnover, these annual elections. so every new set of politicians comes in they want their own set of laws. you have the multiplicity, immunability, meaning laws are crazy, nobody knows what the law is. the judges are going crazy because the laws are being changed so rapidly and then

they're unjust. and what madison meant by that was they were hurting creditors. inflation, the printing of paper money. he wants to solve this problem. but how do you do it? how do you limit a majority without doing violence to the basic principle of democracy or republicanism as he used it? and that is a major problem. that i think is what we're facing or the people in the arab spring are facing. when you think about it, those coptick christians who were a minority in egypt benefited from the authoritarian government of mubarak. you remove that authority and minorities are in trouble. how do you protect them and still maintain majority rule? that is a major issue that i don't think the arabs have faced up to and we'll have to see how it plays out. but that's what madison had to deal with. he was trying to work out what he called republican remedy for republican ills. now, there is a solution that some others in his colleagues

thought, let's go back to monarchy. let's go back to authoritarian government. that's a solution to rampaging democracy. madison did not want to go down that path. that is -- i think what's the makes the 1780s so crucial. i think the most important decade in our history because out of it comes the constitution. and a whole new appreciation of the, if you will, the dark side of democracy that it can be dangerous if majorities are allowed to run free. >> now, how serious -- you know, you read about talk of monarchy at the constitutional convention. there's a story of governor morris saying we better take a king now while we can get one, while he would accept our offer. but it's a secondhand story. james monroe said he heard it from someone else. how real was the temptation, do you think? >> i think it was a serious threat.

i think lots of people thought that monarchy was in the cards. the natural -- the notion of the natural flow of government -- development of a government was from simple to more complex and at some point they all assumed that america would have to have a monarchy. now, it didn't go that way. we went the opposite, but that was countered to the social scientists' notion of how states developed. to give you one anecdote that helps to explain the culture at the time. when washington was elected president, he is going to write up his inaugural address. so he asks david humphries the assistant draw up an address for me. he works it out, and he has in that address an apology. he said, look, my fellow american citizens, you don't have to fear need.

fear me. i have no airs. there can be no monarchy developing from my presidency. and he goes on with this kind of vein of warning against -- this is not going to happen as long as i'm president. well, madison, he asked madison to look at the draft and madison says take that out. you can't do that. you can't write that. but the fact that he thought that, the notion of monarchy was so much in the air, it was so much predicted by so many people that washington felt he had to make this kind of a statement. and i think that suggests that we ought to take seriously the threat of monarchy. now, there were too many people like madison who are confirmed republicans for this to develop. but the notion of the -- that john adams made in the -- as president of the senate that we had to have a distinguished title for george washington. they debated that for a month. and then finally issued what they -- the senate did, i think it said his highness and

protector of their liberties. and madison in the house says that's crazy. we'll just throw that out and we'll call him mr. president. but the fact that people thought seriously of these kinds of royal titles, and washington himself conducted them i think as president. he wanted to bring dignity to the office. so he had levies. weekly levies which were modeled on those held by george iii. the english monarchs. of course in some sense we have an elected monarch as president, which is what many -- that's what jefferson thought we had. like the polish king. he's elected for a few years. they thought washington would serve for life. when he died the vice president would take over, he'd serve for life, so on. that's how people thought the office would proceed. now it turned out differently because washington was desperate to get back to mount vernon. that was wonderful for our

system that he could surrender power. >> he was the first president to hate his second term. followed by all the others. >> right. exactly. right, right. >> and, of course, of the first five presidents, the only one to have a son, one of his sons became the sixth president. >> that's right. think about that. they had all daughters or no children as madison and yet, the one who did have the son was john adams. that son became president. i think lots of people thought that we could go in that direction. and of course many people accused andrew jackson of being a king. king andrew. that's why the wigs took the title they did. the presidency, as you know, is a very powerful office. article ii is so vague that the office can be stretched to extraordinary lengths if one wants to do it. and wartime conditions, of course were exactly what madison and jefferson feared. because those are the conditions

under which executive authority expands, and that's why they feared war so deeply. >> of course, there's -- then there's that wonderful letter of hamilton's when the deadlock in 1800 -- this is before the house and there's some federalists who are thinking let's put burr in the presidency and hamilton said no, don't do that. but one of his arguments is that based on his judgment of jefferson, i think the phrase is he'll want to come into a good estate. i think that's psychologically shrewd, despite his rhetoric. he'll enjoy those powers. >> jefferson had -- burr had no principles whatsoever. and jefferson he said has a modicum of principles. >> good enough. close enough. now, we have been in a founder's revival for i'd say 15 years or so. and you make the point in one of your essays that our

relationship to the founders is similar in some ways to the founders' relationship to the romans, to the classical world, but primary the romans. and what does that mean? what is our relationship, what was theirs to their predecessor? >> well, i first would say, that may be an exaggeration. i think they look back to the roman hero, cicero as models of leadership. as examples of disinterested, virtuous behavior. they held up the roman model, but of course rome died. they're frightened, they didn't want the go that way. that was a problem. how do you prevent your state from degenerating? the common assumption was that states were like human beings. they were born, they grew up. they matured and they died. so how do you hold off that natural process as much as possible?

so that -- but i think our relationship to these founders is much closer. i didn't mention in this the book, but i came across more recently a quotation from lincoln. speech of 1859, where he talks about we americans and our connection to these founders and i was thinking of course there's been a lot of criticism of the tea party because they seem to have become one with the founders. and the academics have mocked this kind of connection with the founders as if they we -- we can connect up with people 200 years in the past, but lincoln felt there was a rear connection. he said we're one with them, we they are flesh of our flesh, blood of our blood. we have an electric cord that connects us to them. and when you think about it, i think there's some truth to that. that we get our bearings from these founders. not that in some sensey'