on c-span's "q&a." next, author and historian caroline janney discusses national reconciliation. warargues that the spanish boys -- helped revive the country. she said this came with restrictions with denied equality for african-american soldiers. a division mirrored in american society at large. this talk was part of a daylong symposium held at the library of virginia in richmond. it's about 45 minutes. >> the next speaker, dr. caroline janney is professor of history at purdue. she will always be a virginia girl. she received her phd from the university of virginia, go hoos. she is also a familiar face to museum audiences. she delivered the 2013 lecture

at the university of richmond on the subject of her latest book -- "remembering the civil war." she returned to richmond the following june to accept the jefferson davis award for the same book. her first book, "burying the dead but not the past," is a personal favorite of mine kerry as she well knows. she also edited an edition of a travel account which unfortunately is out-of-print and unavailable. as carrie knows, i have given a talk on her first book i think as many times as you have. [laughter] it is a branch of history that so many people do not know about and since we are in the postwar

period and the sesquicentennial timeframe, it is especially important. carrie janney also co-edited with gallagher, our last speaker, a book about the overland campaign. we keep it all in the family here at the museum. we also offer a chance today if you are interested in getting that book, you can get both editors to sign it at the same time. it is available for sale after the break. today, carrie janney will be speaking about the civil war, and the spanish-american war and the limits of national reconciliation. ladies and gentlemen, one of my personal favorites, carrie janney. [applause] dr. janney: thank you to waite

so much. it is always a treat to get to come back to virgin you and -- to virginia, and richmond in particular. i used to joke that people thought i worked at the museum of confederacy because during grad school, i was there every day and the staff started letting me in before anyone was allowed in there. it is like coming home. thank you very much. today, as he mentioned -- and also, thank you to john kosley. today, i am going to talk about the spanish-american war and civil war memories. we are not going to speak about the spanish-american war per se but the way the veterans of this war thought about their role in the spanish-american war and vice a versa. the spanish-american war has often been described as the moment that knit the nation back together. this popular image that is on

the front of nina silvers great book "romance of reunion," -- the tableau depicts the confederacy coming back together. this war bringing the sections back together. the popular narrative is that by 1898, white northerners and southerners locked hands together in reconciliation to fight together as white americans. historians have said that in doing so, this is the moment when union veterans forgot that they had fought a war ignited by slavery. that they remain silent that the union victory had resulted in emancipation. in doing so, they sold out to confederate memories as a lost cause. this afternoon, i hoped to convince you that the place of the spanish-american war and the story of national reconciliation is much more complicated than this.

i want to talk you about the ways that buries groups used the -- various groups used the war to reflect back on the civil war and vice a versa. african-americans for their part pointing out that their participation proved that they were citizens entitled to civil and political rights. former confederates argued that their service in the war proved that they were loyal americans and it simultaneously emboldened their defense of the lost cause. while white union soldiers agreed that former confederates might now be committed to fighting a foreign, a common foreign foe, union veterans have not forgotten that there had been a white and wrong side in the civil war. -- a right and wrong side in the civil war. in order to put all of this in context, i want to give a brief background on the role of reconciliation and the place of reconciliation as we get to 1898.

in the years after the civil war, former confederates and unionists worked tirelessly to enter that their respective memories of the war would dominate. they did so through the creation of national cemeteries. national cemeteries exclusively for loyal union soldiers. you can see a memorial day observance in ohio. they did so through the creation of veterans organizations including the grand army of the republic. here is another group from st. mary's, west virginia. here in richmond, the camp of confederate veterans were no less dedicated to creating and protecting their memory of the lost cause. this is an image from gettysburg from 1888 where veterans had gathered to make this the union memorial park. african-americans for their part, another picture from richmond, celebrated

emancipation day. for the most part, confederates lauded the lost cause and african-americans along with their abolitionist allies the emancipation cause. despite the fact that there were very distinct memories of the war and concerted efforts on the part of all of these groups to protect what they saw as the truth of the war, despite this, why the 1880's and 1890's, there was a culture of reconciliation. americans were celebrating that they had come back together. they created the first national military park. the first one was in chattanooga. it was authorized by congress in 1880. this was proof that the nation had come back together. union and confederate soldiers united to dedicate the national military park. popular plays and musicals at

the time celebrang the reunion of the nation. even political campaigns, the populist campaign celebrated reconciliation. in all of these efforts, there was a focus on the bravery and valor of the american soldier, not the union or confederate soldier. and often that not always, there was the culture of reconciliation and it tried to stay away from the topic of slavery and reconstruction. nothing brought more ire from former confederates then discussion of slavery and reconstruction. the horrors of war, the upheavals of reconstruction were behind americans. at the height of the spirit came the spanish-american war. in the spring of 1898, theodore roosevelt, will you and randolph

-- william randolph hearst and other military officers got their splendid little war. they understood that expelling spain from cuba would open up naval bases, foreign markets, and extend u.s. power around the globe. when the battleship maine was mysteriously exploded in the havana harbor in 1898, killing 260 americans, the drumbeat for war grew louder. congress would join newspapers in calling for a war and in calling for retaliation. president mckinley, the last union veteran to hold the office was not yet convinced. i have been through one war he famously wrote a friend and i have seen the dead piled up. i do not want to see another. nevertheless, by april 11, he had acquiesced authorizing congress to declare war on spain

in the name of cuban independence. think about the ironies. southern independence, cuban independence. war was declared. the president called for 125,000 volunteers to fight for the freedom of cubans as the u.s. army at this point is about 28,000 men. throughout the spring of 1898, letters poured into president mckinley from union and confederate veterans. the letters are in the national archives. you can go and look and see what they are writing. on one hand, many veterans were very much like mckinley and thought there had been enough bloodshed. others recognized that war with a foreign foe might prove useful beyond the so-called purpose of liberating the cubans. the confederate veterans in particular, the war offered the opportunity to prove their allegiance, to prove their loyalty to the united states.

countless letters. i will give you an example from one. a veteran from the texas brigade offered to raise a regiment of former confederates. here is what he writes -- the loyalty of ex confederates to our government has been made the subject of criticism. all we ask is an opportunity to let our actions speak for our loyalty. there are countless letters along the same lines. there are also letters who together offered to create united regiments. president mckinley and others recognized as this envelope should suggest that the war was in fact perfectly positioned to capitalize on the existing reconciliation sentiments. two and sectional bitterness. the war was very brief as i am sure you all know kerry it lasted only 114 days. it would claim the lives of 460 americans in battle and another

5200 by disease. regardless, this was a war that was to be fought by a united, reunited nation. as such, president mckinley appointed both union and confederate veterans to key positions. most prominent among the white southerners was none other than lee. this picture comes from the virginia historical society. [laughter] you can see he was a rather martial looking character by that time. maybe it is the fact that he had been a governor of virginia by that point. that may be the reason for his repose. he was currently serving as consul in havana at the time. joseph wheeler, also named a major general. he was chosen for more political

reasons than experience. he also had been a former confederate leader but also probably more importantly, a democratic congressman from alabama in the first major engagement, many of you have probably heard his quote -- let us go boys, we have the damn yankees on the run again. [laughter] whether or not that is true, we do not know but you can see how it fueled the notion that the confederates are now part of the fight again. i don't have a picture of thomas rosser but he is another interesting one that was named a brigadier general. he was one of the fellows who refused to surrender at appomattox courthouse in 1865. he finally turned himself in for parole in may of 1865. he would train recruits at the new battlefield. at the beginning of the spanish-american war.

william oates, the one armed former colonel of the 15th alabama, perhaps best known for his attempts at little round top. another former governor of alabama. he was a surprising choice considering the fact that he had viciously attacked union veterans and their cause at the 1895 dedication in chattanooga. now, he has changed his tune. along with these men and other former confederates, former confederates from the rank as well as their sons who had not yet achieved time on the battlefield. the former confederates, white southerners joint horses with their former enemies under this ours and stripes. a few key figures here. nelson miles, perhaps best known for his war against the native americans. he would lead the invasion into puerto rico. general wesley maritz, another survivor of gettysburg. he had been present at

appomattox. and second from the left, general arthur macarthur who i have always thought had a great name. and of course, you probably know who his son was. these are our union veterans who are now in key leadership positions in the spanish-american war. newspapers across the country gushed that the mason-dixon line had been obliterated by the war. they also talked about the fact that white southerners in atlanta and vicksburg celebrated july 4 for the first time since the war. here is a union veteran -- the war in spain is worth all it will cost in blood and treasure , he declared, for the confidence it begets in soldiers of both armies. they saw this war as much as liberating cubans as an opportunity to bind the nation back together.

for white southerners, this was an opportunity to do more than just relish reconciliation. in fact, it also vindicated the things that they had been saying about the confederate cause, their lost cause for years now. now, they said look -- the word traitor and rebel no longer apply to us. former confederate general stephen lee -- there is a show of no small pride that the whole country has at last learned its true value, the depth and fervor of southern patriotism. indeed, the lost cause was in itself in many ways a justification for fighting. white southerners reminded those from other regions that their motivation was the same motivation that had motivated them in every other war in history. the same patriotism that prompted them to fight in 1776, 1812, in the mexican-american war and even in the great struggle between the states had motivated them now.

in each instance they said that they had fought for the principles that were constitutional and unequivocally american. they had fought in 1861 as they did in 1898, now in the name of cuba for the principle of self governance and liberty. for the lost cause, they are holding up. the reason they went to fight in 1861 is the reason they are fighting now. surely, no one could argue that the lost cause was immoral. by highlighting their own fight for liberty, albeit now on behalf of the cubans, and in a post to union veterans so-called claims of fighting to free the slaves, white southerners could simultaneously claim loyalty to the united states flag and to their confederate heritage. most important, the war with spain allowed former confederates to accomplish on an international stage what the lost cause had been claiming for years.

vindication of southern honor, manhood, and loyalty. they were not the only groups that looked to the spanish-american war and the connections with the civil war. african-american men did the same. black men likewise look to cuba for another opportunity to prove their patriotism. to prove their masculinity. just as they had tied their civil war service to a demand for political rights, in 1890 8, many african-americans hoped their participation might help turn back the growing tide of disenfranchisement. turn back the growing tide of segregation. the iowa state bystander, a newspaper noted -- our fathers labored, fought, and died to perpetuate this country and leave a heritage for us. harking back to 1863, the paper continued, " let us be men and

show loyalty and we will be rewarded." not everyone was on board with this. a number suggested that most of the 10,000 african-american men who did volunteer for the war were from northern states as opposed to southern states. much of that might be because of the effort of men like john mitchell. again, it right here in richmond, editor of the richmond planet. he insisted that black and should only fight if they did so under black officers. with the ranks of colonel in major -- and major a departure , from what had been the case during the united states colored troops. no officer, no fighting. we will wait for the change. many white southerners were content to wait, responding to mckinley's call for colored troops. the new orleans times democrat insisted on the speedy and the inisted on expediency of registering of

african-americans. invoking the civil war's memory, mitchell responded that in fact this was the same logic issued to lincoln. even robert e. lee had "recommended the confederates arm the same negroes and use them to fight against the united states." mitchell pointed out the results were clear. "lincoln enlisted these negroes and won." history repeats itself according to mitchell. other unionists joined in recalling the civil war service of african-americans during the current conflict. it seemed hardly coincidental that thomas wentworth higginson wrote his biography, his lengthy articles detailing the valorous contribution of the first south carolina volunteers during the midst of the spanish-american war. the heroics of the soldiers had not been should not be forgotten

he insisted. black soldiers had volunteered, fought valiantly during the civil war and would again. black soldiers a signed to "pacify" the indians in the american west, the so-called upload soldiers were among the first to be mobilized in 1898. this was in part the scientific racism that goes with this that many white americans thought physiologically and biologically they were better suited to fight in the caribbean and the tropics. during the short work, approximately 10,000 african-americans served. many of them, to much acclaim. news of the ninth and 10th cavalry's heroics, under the overall command of none other than former confederate general joseph wheeler. it filled newspapers throughout the nation.

booker t. washington likewise chimed in. just as he had praised the 54th massachusetts for their civil war service, he lauded the service of civil war soldiers -- excuse me of african-american soldiers during the spanish-american war. he addressed the largest audience he had ever spoken to at the chicago peace jubilee in october of 1898. this image comes out of his autobiography. he claimed this was the largest audience he had ever spoken to. in it he celebrated the heroic sacrifice of african-american men throughout the nation's history. crispus attucks to the heroism of black regiments that stormed in santiago.

in all of these victories, black men had fought for their nation. with that, he looks at mckinley sitting in the box. he looks up at mckinley and thanks him for recognizing the contribution of black men to the work. an eruption in the audience. people are standing up and waving handkerchiefs and clapping. finally, washington gets them to settle back down. he continues reminding them that there is still one more victory. for americans to win. here is washington. we have succeeded in every conflict except in the effort to conquer ourselves and blotting out of racial prejudices. we can celebrate the era of peace with a firm resolve on the part of northern men and southern men, black men, and white men that the trenches we have together dug around santiago shall be the eternal burial place for all that separates us in our business and civil relations.

here is booker t. washington offering the ultimate reconciliation message trying to reunite the nation in sectional and racial peace. not in a purpose of forgetting the past but in an acknowledgment of the sacrifice of the devotion of black men that they had always shown to the united states. of course, this reconciliation between the races was not to be at that moment. neither was there as much reconciliation between north and south as popular images would have us believe. popular images even from the time such as this cover of puck suggesting former confederates and unionist veterans had reunited. in 1865, the refusal of the united states government to bury confederate dead in national u.s. cemeteries alongside the concurrent development of confederate national cemeteries by the ladies memorial

associations in the south. the dead had served to hinder feelings of reconciliation in the media post civil war. -- in the immediate post civil war. the dead had served to keep sectionalism alive. in 1898, the dead became the chief symbol of a reunited nation. or at least that was the hope of many. once again, the blood of north and south flowed. this time, it did not do so under the name of contending sections but beneath the same flag. when newspapers learned that one of the first war death was a sailor from north carolina and the son of a confederate veteran, they raved with reconciliation sentiment. there is no north or south wrote , the new york tribune. we are all bagley's countrymen. from tennessee came the story of two fathers, one a union veteran

the other confederate. they agreed that their sons could fall in together on the hill. men who had once fought against each other now mingled their tears over sons who had sacrificed their lives on the altar of the united states. invoking the so-called new birth of freedom that lincoln has spoken up at gettysburg, countless orders suggested the new nation might and fact be born from the spanish-american war. and from the dead in particular. here again is stephen lee, former confederate general. also the president of the united confederate veterans by this point. he said " the last hateful memory that can divide our country is buried with them. about their graves we have a new nation loving all of her children everywhere." at the atlanta peace jubilee,

when the peace treaty is finally signed by december of 1898, president mckinley uses this image of the dead reuniting the nation as a symbol of a reunited nation. in part, a gesture of reconciliation but also a savvy , political bid to get southern support for overseas expansion. a great many southern congressmen and senators were not on board with this. he proposed that the federal government should assist, monetarily assist in caring for graves of all civil war soldiers. sectional lines no longer marred the united states, mckinley asserted. sectional feeling no longer holds back the love that we bear each other. i want you to listen to this next passage, i read it as him invoking the union cause as much as reconciliation. he rejoiced that the most recent war had proven that, " the

union, the common atlas of our love and loyalty. the time has now come in the evolution of sentiment and the evolution of feeling under the providence of god when the spirit of fraternity we should share with you in the care of graves of the confederate soldiers." at this, newspapers reported that the men who had fought in the audience leapt to their feet or tottered to their feet as the case may have been. [laughter] and they applauded madly for mckinley for binding the nation together. it was a short-lived victory for mckinley. the limits of reconciliation would bear their teeth. hoping to capitalize on such sentiment, a southern congressmen and senator proposed bills that would open the national soldiers homes to confederate veterans and they would offer pensions, federal pensions to confederate soldiers. yes. you know where this is going. [laughter] >> he says the federal

government is willing to shed out money for the confederate dead, why not for the living? why not the impoverished men who fought for the union cause? union veterans would have none of this. they found the idea of pensions insulting. here is the editor of a major newspaper, the national tribune . the editor conceded he did not have a problem honoring the dead who were diluted and deceived into joining the rebellion. listen to the language there. they are americans and countrymen. and helping them to tend to the places where their fallen were buried he said was an act of brotherly sympathy. he added though that it did not mean there would be no distinction between union and confederate graves. union graves should get more money and attention because their shed always be a distinction for those who fought for the flag and those who fought against.

he went on. he said placing rebel survivors on the pension rolls or admitting them to soldiers' homes would be " subversive to every principle upon which the war for the preservation of the union was waged. ." in fact, many confederate veterans agreed with him albeit for different reasons. the united confederate veterans camp's across the south immediately issued statements denouncing pensions for ex-confederates. denouncing their admission to soldiers homes. even the care of the confederate dead they said belonged to the south. in particular, the noble women who had cared for the dead since 1865. after a spirited debate in may of 1899, the confederate veterans voted to decline mckinley's offer with the exception of confederate graves that were located in the north, namely those at ed point lookout

and other former prisons. care of the south's dead was "a sacred trust dear to the hearts of southern women and we believe he can safely remain there." to accept aid for living or dead confederates from the federal government would be a concession , a failing of the honor and pride among those who had fought and died for the south. it would be a failing in holding up the lost cause. confederatesr ejected federal pensions, as they rejected cemetery aid, the color line was more readily apparent in the wake of the spanish-american war. one example for you, this is the national union cemetery in florence, south carolina. other nationalnd cemeteries throughout the south for years after the war the primary people who showed up for memorial day had been

african-americans. they had been the ones to show up and place flowers on union graves. in 1899, memorial day in 1889, white leaders observed that the african-americans who had so long participated in the day had failed to decorate graves at florence. in the name of reconciliation fostered by the spanish-american war white ga our members call to formation of a blue and gray memorial certification directly -- founding documents say they were responding to mckinley's call for joint nation. their goal was to sponsor memorial days and decorate the graves of those union and confederate soldiers in the area. perhaps most significantly the group elected to bar african-americans from the day of observances. this is in the south.

i want to make it clear, and as doug pointed out earlier, there were integrated gar posts mainly in new england at this point. nevertheless what we start to see is increasingly white only affairs that occurred at the same time that northern and southern whites were talking about reconciliation. talking about the spanish-american war. they all revealed a heightened sense of anglo-saxonism in this period. despite the presence of african-american troops, the spanish-american war seemed to confirm the national unity of southern and northern white people uniting for imperialistic ambitions. the war and the colonial expansion of followed in the philippines, puerto rico seemed to confirm the backward characteristics of nonwhite people and therefore the common superiority of anglo-saxons. this new emphasis on anglo-saxonism did notean that white union veterans had

forgotten that the civil war had been about slavery. to return to our starting point, white unionists had not forgotten that african-americans or slavery had been part of the war. just one of many examples, this is the soldiers and sailors monument in indianapolis outside of the lincoln memorial. this is the largest civil war monument in the country, dedicated in 1902 to all hoosiers and everywhere they had -- in every war they had fought. including the spanish-american war. you can see clearly here that the plight of freeing the slaves was essential to the message that union veterans wanted to remember in their central war memorial in indiana. this did not mean that most white union veterans or white northerners in general thought civil and political rights for

african-americans. in recent years historians seemed to have forgotten that racism and remembering that slavery was part of the war did in fact go hand in hand for many union veterans. slavery and race were not interchangeable in the minds of white union veterans. just to wrap up, although americans had come together in the defense of the nation in 1898, they had not done so by merely agreeing to remain silent on the memory of the civil war. or because of ideas about what supremacy. white supremacy had been around a long time before 1898. the spanish-american war left the mixed legacy for the reconciliation for the age. reconciliation spirit for the age. for african-americans like booker t. washington, finding the common history with white

neighbors was imperative. for others, they pierced lee challenged reconciliation. neither had sectional reconciliation triumph or white union and confederate veterans. even the spanish-american war, long championed is evidence of the white north and the white south had reunited to fight a foreign foe, a nonwhite foe, could not thoroughly bind of the nation's wounds. thank you. [applause] >> i want to make an observation. and then pass on to questions. prominent most obelisks at arlington cemetery is fighting joe wheeler's

obelisk below the lee mansion. , youted to ask you mentioned in your remarks that you reminded us that the common enemy here was the pigmentation , let us say, of the spanish. is there any evidence that part of this reunion between north and south was subliminally coming out of their common racism towards people of color, or at this time a shared protestant antipathy towards roman catholics? ms. janney: let me start with joseph wheeler and say the fact that wheeler is in arlington

national cemetery is only because of his service in the spanish-american war. he was a u.s. veteran after that. there is a confederate section in arlington. that is a whole different story. the argument you ask about whether the north and the south came together over common issues of race, that has very much been a predominant argument in the recent years. historians have said white northerners and southerners came together, agreed to let bygones be bygones because of their common issues, their common ideas about race. while that is certainly a thread of it, i don't see that as the main impetus for reconciliation. both sides had been racist by our 21st-century terms well

before the civil war. they did not discover they have this common idea of white supremacy in the aftermath of the civil war and that allowed the to agree to let bygones be bygones. we think back to dr. ayer's lecture this morning. in the fall of 1864, we see these divisions in many ways had nothing to do with race. at the same time they have everything to do with race. this idea that it was something as simple as white supremacy to lead to reconciliation i think a far too simplistic way of looking at it. it lasts well into the 20th century. complex ideas about race are part of that but the whole story. >> [indiscernible] ms. janney: the question is about protestant anti-catholic

sentiment. i will punt that one and say that is not something i found a great deal of and don't see that as part of the reconciliation story. >> thank you. it seems to me our culture today in historical memory is almost obsessed with a good guy versus bad guy narrative. you see it all the comic book movies. can you validate that? do you see that as a roadblock in the spanish-american war efforts in reconciliation, needing to have one construct of a good guy versus bad guy without hampering the efforts of reconciliation? ms. janney: i'm not sure i can stay to the comic book part of the question. i'm not an avid comic book reader.

but i will say the notion of the , righteousness of one cause, and which cause was righteous is something that was fought about even during the war. deciding how do you explain what it is you are fighting for? are you fighting to save the union or to free the slaves or to protect your home or states rights? all of this is very much part of the 150 year long discussion we are still having about what the civil war meant. it's very much a question of who is on the right side of history. who is on the moral high ground. that is the heart of the debate, the heart of what union veterans are saying about and to confederate veterans throughout the 1860's and well into the early 20th century. they are saying you might've fought honorably, you might even brave, that what you fought for was morally repugnant.

confederate veterans will spend that on its head and say you were not actually fighting to free the slaves. you might recall that now, but you also raped and pillaged the south. some of those total war issues that professor grimsley talked about. those questions of who is the good guy and bad guy are absolutely what motivates and propels forward much of the discussion about civil war memory. >> have you found any comments from spain on the comments you made about this subject? ms. janney: no, i have not but i have not looked either. that would be an interesting question to look at. >> beginning about the late 1880's and through the turn-of-the-century there was an increasingly explicit institutionalization of racial restrictions in law and custom throughout the country but

especially in the south. to what extent was there a cause-and-effect relationship either way between this burst of the desire for national reconciliation and these hardening racial attitudes as expressed in specific things like state codes and municipal codes? ms. janney: i don't see that as being the motivating factor of civil war memory shaving that. if confederate veterans have never been allowed to form their organizations, never been allowed to have their cemeteries and things of that nature, if the confederate battle flag and been censored from the beginning and not allowed to be shown in public, i still think those debates about race -- the have thesell would pressing questions. it probably still would have happened. i'm not sure seeing a cause-and-effect between the way veterans and women's groups and

segregation plays out. >> you alluded to the south was not on board with the imperial future of the united states. could you elaborate on that a little bit? ms. janney: one of the things that white confederates are talking about is to what extent -- they hearken back to reconstruction. they use reconstruction in two very different ways. on one hand they say if we look at the history of reconstruction we can say it is not right for a government to come in and try to tell other people to do. look at our own experience, why is it right for us to do that. on the other hand they also start talking about the fact that they talk about whether self-rule is appropriate for people of color. do they have the capability to run their own government? they point back to reconstruction and they say to

their white northern compatriots, we were right about reconstruction. black men were not able to run the show. they were not able to run government and so we need to be careful about how we think about what's going on in cuba and puerto rico and the philippines. they use reconstruction and the memory of that in two opposing ways. it's very formative in their minds of how they think about the role of the united states in thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> you are watching american history tv. forow us on twitter information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest

history news. >> my name is heidi campbell. i am the museum director and chief curator of the dar museum. we are in the gallery today, taking a look at our new exhibition, remembering the american revolution. in the first section we have the subsection. we callsection reminders of war. these are things that revolutionary war soldiers owned or created or carried during the war. one of my favorite items is this wallet. many and women carried wallets like this in the 18th century to keep paper money together in their pockets.

this is from pennsylvania. it was probably made by a female family member for him. thes very colorful, as was custom and popularity at the time. it was saved by his family. inside of it it includes his oath of allegiance. it was designed in 1778. it is the visa paper that some people carried with them. others did not. young this time period wanted to be able to identify yourself as either a friend or foe. the new exhibition about the american revolution -- no exhibition about the american revolution could be had, we don't think, without some discussion of washington. george washington was universally liked as an individual. very unique in american history.

detractors,has his but we don't hear a lot about that. we do hear about his exploration. he's a hero. of our country. we have objects that relate to him specifically. one of the very interesting we have here is the mask of washington hear that was don,ted, of course, by hu the original being at mount vernon. was created in the 1830's by who we believe is august valencia, who was advertising at in the mold and was making plaster busts. this is one of the busts made from washington's life mask.

this is from the artist emmanuel blues, created the famous crossing the delaware painting. that is an interesting art connection, as well as you are looking at washington actually look like, considering the life mask was taken from his face. primarily what we see here are items that have been saved. they would say ultimately it's from the 19th century. either because of the imagery or .he connection to a relative is what wesaving would like people to come away with. we would like to have those objects here.

they've created this museum to in fact save these things. and share these things. >> interested in american history tv? visit our website, c-span.org/history. you can see our upcoming schedule or watch a recent program. "american artifacts," "lectures of history," and more at c-span.org/history. >> the smithsonian secretary, thed skorton, testified on smithsonian institution's budget request for 2017. he told committee members that the national air and phase -- air and space museum needs a facelift and that $50 million in the budget would be for these renovations. the other witnesses showed historical items from