a couple of years ago, i was doing a program. we were talking about the legacies of war. he said, the competitor confederacy is. -- the confederacy is toxic. how could he have such a different view of the confederacy than you might. he, doesn't see the war, or the confederacy through the lens of personal connection. he sees the confederacy through the lens of national --

the confederacy fought to sustain and perpetuate differences. that it's all between itself and the rest of the union. that's what brought on the war. the differences. those differences are very clearly laid out and statements of policy and practice. the confederate obstetrician, for example. one of the major differences between the united states constitution the confederacy got the attrition -- there is a six year term for president. i don't think they went to war over that. a major difference is the issue of the approach to the national commitment of slavery. there were a number of characteristics that field this. when someone does not have the personal connection to the war stands back and says look, and

they see the confederacy, they do not see as as young men wanting to defend their homes, they see a government committed to the sus is -- sustenance of white supremacy and slavery in america. all people see it that way, but some do. getting back to this question of policy. union soldiers who marched into town in april of 1865, racist union soldiers, who may have hated black people, some of them. they marched for freedom. not because they were motivated by that, but because the government that they were fighting for have establish that -- establish that is what is the as

one of the purposes of war. our job, in part, is help people on table these very tangled up things. one of the things intel, and i'm not the first to say this, in remembering or creating a memory of your life,, or of our national life is forgetting. while remembering certain things can be painful, and some of it can be hurtful, forgetting can be just as hurtful as well for those who are forgotten. what you see over the last 50 years is an effort by this nation, challenged by people within it, to not forget so much.

and to understand how so many americans might see the war differently than uri -- you or i. that puts the park service and it difficult place. we are the keepers, in many ways, of the nation's memory especially as it relates to the civil war. we facilitate this dialogue reconciliation virtue, people come to our parks not to be provoked and angered but to be inspired. and to learn. and understand why they ought to be grateful to be americans, and be grateful for the americans that have preceded them. i think we do a pretty good job of that.

but, here's the punch. are we memorialized -- memorial ists or historians stucco are they mutually exclusive? can we do both? it is a difficult perch to be on. some people would argue that our role as memorialiasts somehow disqualifies. some people have been uncomfortable in the role that we play and in facilitating connections. they have recommended, as i think we have increasingly recognized that part of the work that we do and tells a good deal of forgetting.

and so, they look at us and say what are you doing? you don't need to coddle people just there on out there and do it. the fact is when you work for national park, or any historical site it -- think about the historical sites we manage. lbj, do you think when lady bird was alive they said, i wonder what mrs. johnson will think about this? or jimmy carter. all of these places have come to us. 9/11. there was an understanding that we would honor and respect their story. and to tell it as that deed of

manassas says, without venture and with due respect. so that they will put us in a different place than the historians in academia. absolutely. are we memorialists? absolutely. but can we do our job better as being historians? absolutely. here are a couple of questions that i'm am not going to offer answers forward. i don't know the answers to these. can america distinguish between confederates and the confederacy? can we honor confederates and talk honestly about the confederacy at the same time? will the lens of personal connection yield or permit that to happen?

i don't know. think about that. here is another question. and i don't know the answer to this either. there are many americans who lament the demise of the confederacy. which of course apply to things. both, perpetuation of slavery, at least for a time, and destruction of the union here can you lament the demise of the confederacy and still love american? i don't know the answer to that question. so, the american civil war is many things. it is undoubtedly america's most costly human tragedy. it is likely the most bloody mf patient in the world. it is a milestone moment along

america's path to freedom justice, equality. it is the foundation on which our nation emerged on the world stage as a world power. it is the greatest demonstration of both failure and durability of democracy. it is perhaps the most vivid reflection of our for jews successes and failures, all wrapped up into one . these are all things have shaped the lives of every american, and millions and millions of people beyond our nation's boundaries. in our relentless quest for simplicity, and are selective memory that often insist only on history that flatters or inspires us, many americans, and maybe america at large failed to see the immense legacy of the

civil war in our lives and culture. the problem with public history as it relates to the civil war is not, as some seem to feel that too many people are interested in the civil war. the problem is that not enough are interested in the civil war. every american should be able to find the gateway into the story for engaging the civil war as part of not only the national experience, but the framework of their own lives. yet, for a hundred reasons, many not within our control, they do not. as i conclude here, let's think about that list of names. the civil war. the war of rebellion. the war for the union. the war for the southern independence. the second war for independence.

each of these names speaks to a certain perspective on the war. it is easy to see why southerners would see the war as a war of northern aggression. i get that. we all get that. or the war for southern independence. lord is easy to see too why former slaves would see as the war for emancipation. or northerners as the war for rebellion. i think you can see that. some might see this as a bothersome debate. maybe it is a symptom of why so many americans are put off by the war. why do argue about stuff like that. but let's look at that, those names, in a different way. each of those names represents a perfectly valid perspective on the war. and each is a potential gateway for americans to engage in the

story. this world changing story. the problem is, and for reasons that seem mysterious to many people who are not inclined towards history, the problem is we continually fill barriers and away large and subtle. we view the labels, these names as not able to stand side by side, but reaches the exclusive. if the war is a war on northern aggression, a can also be a war for emancipation. but in fact, it was. it was all of those things. that's ok. like our fellow americans, our history always challenges us to be better. we draw strength and an aspiration from those who risked and gave all for our communities

protection. our nation's protection. we only pray, as we look back, that we are worthy of their sacrifices. we also model and emulate the wisdom of those who struggle to improve the nation. not just those who protected it. those who improved as well, and both large and -- in both large and small ways. we learn from their mistakes in ways that they could never could. this tumultuous tide of history that brings us here to this very spot today, and to this conversation at this moment, this tide of history with all of its greatness and its shortcomings, all mixed up and intermingled, has carried us forward. our challenge, as we leave here today, and my final question to you is will we use the

inspiration and lessons that the tide there's to continue the work of shaping -- the work of continuing to shape our great nation? thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for the thought-provoking talk. you put out a lot of questions for the folks here. they may have a couple of questions for you. if you do, if you would come to the microphone in the aisle, state your name and question. we have about five minutes for questions and then we will wrap it up. >> william traveled from maryland. that was a very inspiring talk.

you kind of went there. went around the bush, around the barn, chasing it. you did not answer the one question, are we still fighting the civil war? >> pick up the newspaper today. i guarantee you in the newspaper today, there is an article that raises questions about the appropriate role of the federal government in our lives. if you pick up the newspaper on march 15, 1791, i guarantee you will find an article somewhere in there about what is the appropriate role of the federal government in our lives. this is an issue that has been constant and we continue to try and resolve. but, only once, in the course of those 200 plus years of conversation did that american

discussion collapse into war. i think that as we look at the flow of our lives, how we resolve issues as a nation, it is important, really important to understand how we have failed to do that in the past and what the consequences are, which is in my mind another reason to not only be interested in the war itself, but try to find a way to engage your friends and neighbors, and people you don't even know in this discussion. >> i will say that the civil war was not over in my life. about 20 years ago, we start going to nascar races. we went to richmond, virginia, and the nascar flag ha -- we

decided we would fly a flag with the confederate flag on it and we were told that we cannot do that. they said it would be torn down and burn. >> i'm not sure if that is true but there were certainly people who would disagree with it. generally speaking, there are people who would armada comfortable by the flying of the come federate flag. they generally aren't tearing them down, but they generally are expressing themselves. once again, this is a call for just a step back to see that flag was absolutely means one thing to you, as a symbol that your ancestors walked under, gave their lives. it means that.

but, we also have to recognize it means something else to someone else who saw it flown, or displayed in a very different context. when we run into trouble i am all in favor of arguing about these things. when we brought into trouble is when we insist that everyone sees the same way. it's not going to happen. it's just not going to happen. >> i think when we understand why lincoln got a emancipation through, but he didn't take the next up, s civil rights. of course, there was selma. there is ferguson today. >> these will be the last two questions. the two gentlemen who are up. >> you mention that some of the common knowledge that we have refined over the years, you

alluded to the myth of the block of southern white soldiers and civilians. you see as we start looking at reconstruction, an opportunity to do something similar in regards to the study of that. period. >> looking at, not just the memorial aspects of it, but the intellectual aspects of it can't but follow it through to be construction. -- reconstruction. the park service has a program which is intended to do this very task of moving us forward. which is what we hope to do. reconstruction if you think the civil war is a contentious issue, wait until we start

talking about reconstruction seriously. there are very few issues that have more widely divergent issues that reconstruction. by the way, that was craig who runs one of the best civil war blogs in the country. if you want to follow his intellectual footsteps through his discovery of the war, it is a great place to go. >> i never thought i would live to see the day when thousands of americans a new york city were marching the summer chanting, what do we want? dead cops. when do we want them? now. we are a very divided country today with racial relations. president obama has weighed in on ferguson. he has weighed in on selma.

on trevor martin in florida. i wonder how the park service fields about his loss -- feels about his lost opportunity in uniting us by going to big spurt or gettysburg, or going to appomattox next week and celebrating the 260,000 -- let me change that, 360,000 dead union soldiers who died for the national stated policy of freeing the slaves that they never met. >> two things. first off national park service doesn't really have a mind of its own. it is a collection of people with their own minds. secondly, the president of the united states is my boss. i would be hesitant -- no matter what my opinion was, to enter

into that discussion with you in this setting. i would be happy, when i'm off my uniform, offer up my opinion. i hope you will excuse me for that. >> my name is aj douglas. from virginia. i hope you don't mind me doing this. kind of long, but i would like to say that i don't think the civil war was entirely about slavery. why? because throughout history people don't really care about black people that much. i don't need to say that way but for example, the massacre in paris. that same day, 5000 africans were killed by the same organization that we are fighting today. it was on the news.

the point i making, the question i am asking is if the veterans won the war economically, how would things change in the country? either way, the union one, the confederacy one, there are still -- if slavery were the object, to get rid of it, did we really do that? it still resonates. >> there's a number of issues that you raise. i can't tell you what would've happened if the war, if the confederacy had won the war. there have been books written about that. there is a lot of speculation. i really don't have anything to add to the conversation. your question is a perfect example of how this tide of history still and go fast -- and engulfs us.

we hear about the national banking system, the tariff economic policies, they have also been part of the discussion from the beginning. there was one issue that turn this discourse about the proper role of the federal government in our lives. that issue was, i think, unarguably slavery. now, you equate the issue of race an america's comfort with race with its view on slavery. there are obviously -- they are obviously closely related, but the great impact in the civil war was not a giant stride forward in race relations, but a giant stride as it related to

government policy. the hearts and minds of people moved slower, often times than constitutional amendments reconstruction acts, all of these things. there are two issues at work here. people often point to the emancipation proclamation, or the 13th amendment or 40 the memo, or 15 amendment, and say, look, it is still a problem. but, the great watershed of the american civil war was the point of the nation in terms of its policies going in a new direction that it had never gone before. all else followed slowly, loudly boisterously, sometimes unproductively, but it follows

nonetheless. it still follows today. thank you. [applause] >> again, thanks for the thought provoking talk. many of you have john's books. he has heart -- well, he has a chapter in here, and this book just recently came out. i think you have the first chapter, "conservativism s dying ember." i also found out that i have to recant some of my statements that i made on friday night when i said tracy our first speaker and mike gorman, our second speaker, wrote the first and

second best articles in the centennial magazine. i now believe that the best article is on page 46, by john hennessy. again, the best article you will find page 24-27. [laughter] i think that is going to wrap it up. dr. cole wanted you to know two things, you sign up on the list outside here on the table if you want to get on the mailing list to find out about the seminar next year. information usually goes out early january. second thing is the dining hall is open until 1:30 p.m. if you would like john to find a book for you, you can meet him

how at the speakers table to have those books signed and ask any additional questions. thanks for coming out this year. it has been a great seminar. we hope to see you at appomattox and i year. thank you. [applause] >> that concludes our life coverage from farmville, virginia. their closing of the civil war seminar, cohosted by the appomattox court house. i want to remind you that all of today's coverage will re-air again tonight at 6:30 p.m. on c-span 3. you will find out a lot more civil war seminar coverage on

c-span.org\history. tomorrow, we will be live at the fords theater on an all day symposium of the life, career, and legacy of abraham lincoln. a series of speakers will be hosted at fords, where abraham lincoln was shot nearly 150 years ago. that is live on saturday march way first. >> next, on "american history tv speakers discussed the rosenbergs's devotion to the communist cause. this 90 minute event took place at the national archives in washington dc.

>> good evening ladies and gentlemen. i will get us going. i am the senior adviser of the pulitzer center. a harvard professor emeritus i'm happy to add, and a former journalist for cbs and nbc. our program focuses on the rosenbergs and the role they played in soviet espionage in the united states during the cold war. it is a heck of story. to start with. i'm sure you are all here because you are involved in it emotionally or intellectually. it is a story that goes back to the 1930's when young people joined the communist party in the united states, and world war ii came along, and the united states in the soviet union were allies against hitler. a number of people carried on emotionally an attachment to the soviet union. in this part