to wield that's influence against him. jackson's sense of grievance over that election, an jackson in which believed, and these are his virtuous yo -- all the slander and wickedness, given that sense of at the e, if you look election that way learning that the bank of united states was torrent of wickedness and abuse would be enough by itself. by 1829, june of 1829, when he had been president all jackson was hs, writing friends that the only thing that can prevent our crushed by the ank and its influence would be

to kill the bank itself. watch as they explore whether history impacts contemporary rights. voting they also answer audience questions on how to keep in the voting d process. his discussion was part of a 15thsium, 150 years of the amendment. of the south hosted this event. >> we've here now. had this wonderful 24 learning uess, of opportunities from this rilliant panel of individuals and we're now here for the wrap-up, and they have to us all day and

yesterday are now going to have collaborate with each other. that i did not introduce myself so let me back up. my name is jodie allen and i'm a isiting assistant professor here at swanee and i'm also consultant on the slavery project. oing back to the panel, i'm asking them to answer the question that's in our program that is, does history matter of the 15th amendment? a going to talk about that little bit and then we'll open with the audience. okay? who would like to start. okay. thank you. >> i think about history and it

me of the african word sancofa. it means you have to know your past to understand the present your future. so when it comes to the 15th amendment what we've learned today and i've learned a great from these wonderful panelists, that we have to therstand the intent behind 15th amendment. the history that gave rise to it.the effect of those people who opposed it and he mechanisms that were put in place as obstacles so we can better understand today the suppression we're dealing with. he need for white supremacy, the mechanisms to attempt to maintain white supremacy, an as forward into the future, by 2045, this country will be color.y people of and some of the mechanisms, put ical mechanisms being in place give me concerns about

state in which would you have the minority, uropean americans, who are still in political power, and have put a structure together to a white supremacy despite what is happening all around us in this country. to be the beacon on the hill hat this country claims it is supposed to be, to be that democracy requires that we have to r obstacles to the right vote. we're one of seven nations that we're one of seven nations that takes away the right to vote for life because of the felony conviction. were are so many issues that have to overcome and if we look see this is can not the first go around. machination in the guys of the 21st century to suppression, into what happened in the 18th and 19th centuries. >> thank you. yeah, i would just add, will

affect on the amendment?he 15th probably not, considering the composition of the supreme court. affect how the amendment is viewed and mplemented, yes, but my -- pessimistic first is, many jurists, including members of the supreme court and others, have a very history ofiew of the reconstruction. what all ed view of those amendments were intended o accomplish, and as i've eached -- i mentioned last night, they are still beholden to the old dunning school of econstruction which saw it as kind of, you know, a big mistake

fundamentally. and i think a very narrow vision attempted, what was trying to be accomplished in the era is still kind of dominant in much of the we have ence that including current or recent, that is to say, decision that is -- e heard about today decisions that we've heard about, i hope that a more history comesw of to dominate supreme court thinking about this, but so far evidence that ch that's been happening. just add a word. there is one limited sense in hich history is relevant to constitutional interpretation, so there are very occasional supreme court cases where be able to l challenge a current practice ased on an uncovering of the history behind that practice, so 1980s reme court in the

struck down a particular gerrymandering of the crimes hat would exclude you from voting in alabama, and the upreme court, i think, without dissent, said we've now seen the evidence that in 1901 when -- when i say racial gerrymandering, they excluded voting, not from murder because they assumed somebody whites do -- nd the supreme court said you can't mandate the felony exclusion. other than that i'm pretty that cal of the idea history will affect how people feel about contemporary issues. -- said justices have a truncated view of reconstruction. sure that's true but i ask myself, you know, if they had a in on the sit professor's reconstruction class do you think it would change on the s vote constitutionality of race-based affirmative action?

t's not inconceivable but it seems to me unlikely so think about confederate monuments. we've learned from most people fairly recently send when these things were put up and what their social meaning was. these were not adopted in 1866 o commemorate confederate par heroes. they were often put up, the one in charlottesville, actually hotographed in the daily progress, the local newspaper, showing the ku klux klan emonstrating around the newly erected robert e. lee monument in the 1920s. percentage -- what of the population do you think knowing that, would affect their view whether we should take down con pedestrian rat monuments? i don't say no one would be ffected by it but i'm very skeptical that a large segment of the population. lot.think about this a i teach a class about constitutional history and my of ents are always kind surprised at how bad -- how recently things were really bad. you know, we talk about the workers f civil rights

in the 1960s. s and nchings in the 1950 they are surprised by that. i wondered if everybody took history class how many people's views would it change about some contemporary issue of the constitutionality race-based affirmative action? i just think answer not very many people. i don't think that's how people think. their views are not going to be influenced by learning some new history so i guess i'm pretty skeptical about this and it's not just because as the says, they have a duming school interpretation of reconstruction. of if they had his view reconstruction i doubt it would many views. >> if i could try and add a little bit to this. skepticalle more less i would say, particularly after to hank's students. i think history is -- shouldn't 15th matter for the amendment, it should matter for all the amendments.

about the war powers act, federal reserve or anything else. you to think critically. structurally, to understand that the world wasn't created that it developed. there was change over time. and it helped you to start in terms of evidence. will it change the world overnight? maybe not, but like i was particularly struck by hank's tudents today and my own, once you ask a question and get out of their way students can find by edible things these days doing research. the kind of undergraduate research you can do, or that do quite frankly with their phone or anything else, is revolutionary. but it helps to start thinking in a different way which is what istory allows us to do so that's why i would say yes, it matters. much more m optimistic as well. istory, obviously history is about lessons. history is about opportunity.

about changing the learning howry and ometimes fate and sometimes circumstances led to who we became but more often, it was a who did what, decision makers moving in a moving direction or not in a certain direction. and i think through the study of history, we can define those moments, where a single difference.made a or a single individual followed movement made a difference. and i'm hopeful that those days over.t it is more challenging now anduse it's hard to discern to teach discernment to students today. there is just so much swirling think and sometimes i they are walking into this

contradictory information and part of our job not to lean on them with a political philosophy or ideology or but just to straighten out and help them clear all the to h from the path knowledge. and i think it works. the other thing i would say is, he students are hungry for that. i think the american people are hungry for this. i don't think everybody wakes all, no one is born idiotogue. people come what they become through their association with and friends, with a a tor or a teacher, or with buddy. sometimes that can be a pretty intellectuallyul challenging group and sometimes sultry, you know, awful group that you wouldn't want your kids to be with, but something art of larger than just ourselves. and so it's our job as

would say as d i journalists, and everybody, to as many opportunities for life than outlook on the limited outlook, and the best way we can do sit to become knowledgeable ourselves, and just share that knowledge the se, you know to avoid cliche that i'll never use, like the avoid cliches plague, you know, knowledge is job is to that's our empower the next generation so to can find those paths truth. and to >> i believe history is it will and i believe i do ue to inform us, but have a slight twist on the is power comment. for those of you who -- you

hands ave to raise your and admit it but for those of thrones,"atch "game of there is a marvelous moment when a very bad character says to an character, i know something, and knowledge is power. and the very bad character, who we'll just call little finger, himself surrounded by guards and the very, very bad who we'll call sercy, seize him, turn him around, cut no, wait, step back, leans ound, and she forward and she says, knowledge knowledge. power.s i'm very optimistic. we've had an african-american president. three women on the united states supreme court.

of whom says three down, six to go. optimistic. but then again, i was born in raised if yvesant, public housing optimistic.proj. wall street for 33 years, served as a commissioner on the civilian complaint review board reviewing allegations of isconducts and worked for adelman before anybody had heard of that and the children's two summers for litigation liberties for children. i'm very optimistic. >> thinking back to the question supreme court and the ry, i think with appointment of justice gorsuch who, like his predecessor,

scalea, claims to be an originalist, there will at least an opportunity to educate the supreme court on the history of amendment. one of the things that's striking about originalism, i've researching justice scalea, s how little -- how much all goes back to the founding. 1789 is there all the time. the 1860s and 1870s very much if his discussion. had this opportunity, i agree with michael, trying to persuade votes, but at least the record be made and people can hear those arguments and learn from them. missed an opportunity to point with a scientific experiment because when justice gorsuch was an at columbia i was took my -- but he never course on the civil war

reconstruction. test had, we would have a on the impactta it had on his decision-making, but unfortunately, he didn't. so we'll just have to say where he learns this from. >> thank you. you.k everyone for answering that question. want to open it up now to the questions see what you might have for the panel. may i just raise one point while they are thinking. i do it to my students. looks like you really want to ask a question. make e point i wanted to

and i spoke about earlier talk about int to history how you have these conflicting interests. 1898 in wilmington, north carolina, black politicians won a majority of offices. they were in positions of power, and there was this underlining simmering hatred, but it was riggered through this conflict with not just the white general white ion, but with suffrage, and one particular rebekah, wrote an editorial in which she it reads, if it requires lynching to protect a dearest procession from drunken human beasts, i say negroes a week, end quote. there was a response in the

there was an r, uprising, hundreds of blacks the duly elected were chased out of office. omes were burned and it was on record, the first political coup in the united states. a number of interests, you have women who desire the can't o vote, yet they see the interest of the african-americans. you have people who believe in can't see yet they that people who are duly elected to determine some outcomes and they may or may not agree with them. i see so many of these dueling interests of that time period, extent but ame getting seriously deadly during this time period. an we as a democracy, as a country, have dueling interests without it ending in some deadly way? and as we're now in the 21st century and we feel so very much

we did aisticated than hundred or so years ago that these things couldn't possibly to beg yet i would have the question, if we're going to learn from history, have we lessons, and the how can we learn these lessons if most people don't even know happened? if they don't even know in this country in this democracy, hings like this can happen, so then how can we learn from our past to know more about what's on in this time period of so ling, dueling interests, that we can do better in the future? or 15th amendment, the 14th, any other laws. pick up on that point. yes. >> eric, this may be a softball question. has f the things that impressed me, and i think has has ssed everyone who similar posium,

important,f have made fundamental historical questions accessible to a general audience. it seems to me that a part of the answer to the question posed at the start of this discussion requires us to think about the way in which that history is presented and its access abilities. go home last night after x talk and there was a cherno's biography of grant in "the new york times." it's over a thousand pages. reviewer, who was on balance really quite charitable towards book admitted the that there is a whole lot more most peopleere than would really care to read or to know about. meant to be a cheap shot at the academic establishment. you can bet -- no, it will be on the best-seller list.

will.course it but how the public, as opposed our students get their history and learn it -- ago, when -- was president of the american historical association in his address it's time to reassemble the narrative. yet managed we've to do that. but if we're going to answer question effectively, it seems to me a lot of it has to with the way in which not just how history is understood but how it's presented. question for anyone on the panel. i it won't be a surprise that obviously agree that we need to find ways to tell these stories. we need to tell this history. need to tell it through the people who are affected. benefitted.who the people who were hurt. it's one extra step in the giant one t it's a and well worth it so there is no that., i agree with

and that is sort of, how do you how do you word, but market history as vital to who we are? do have a concern that goes deeper than that, and that is what is our default knowledge about, about who we are as a people and how our works?ment and i don't think there is any of us who will find this at all surprising, you know, we've seen deterioration in the knowledge of that. as simple something as civics died in junior high and high school. take civics. is there even a textbook out there published anymore that has cartoon on how a bill becomes a law? we remember that little guy with bill to arrying the drop it in the hopper, right? okay. and i always thought when former justice sandra day o'connor was cause of civic literacy, that she was on to

something very strong. also match ould beautifully with this new ovement across the country, in colleges and universities, toward developing news literacy programs. what is news? how to discern, how to read news you know, if ee, the national federation for the same d vendors is organization as the left-handed vendors association. they are oftense very different and they are created just to make political eople look like they are on your side. and we need, i think, a national bothign that would combine those. because as much as i do think convert us here, we can everything we know into compelling stories about how changed or could be changed through the people, here has to be some default baseline on how our government works, and which i think would a great way toward reducing

the cynicism toward government come in withpeople a previous position to dislike their government, they are going to e very close minded understanding how so much of important, d is functions. >> i agree. we're one of the few professors which the word exhaustive is compliment. in reconnecting it to the first question, when you make things students you've got them in a heartbeat. f they see it as just a potpourri of interesting things that really aren't related to lives, and this is beyond, udents, it's well beyond that, like i said, i

a way oftory is really empowering yourself. i may understand something now than i did yesterday, but -- whether it will change he world i can't promise that but we all start, whether it's a scientist, an engineer, a research, with the basic question and you've got to allow evidence to take you where it's going to take you and sometimes you in ng to take uncomfortable places, but i default weterms of a think history happened somehow, that it's somehow written and people like the professor come in and revise it, right? bad.d that's >> and that's very bad to think about something anew. finding ways to make history more relevant is really our one we'rei think it's easily capable of doing because to come up t hard with a question that will mmediately engage a large audience.

> so i want to express a more alarmist view. it doesn't seem to me, certainly it's a good thing for historians their ble to present views in accessible ways and more knowledge about history is good thing but we live in a world where people don't agree about basic facts and people basic facts. they believe in alternative facts. they believe in things that ren't true and that's such an enormous problem and i don't think historians writing in more accessible ways is really going able to solve that problem. so in the last 10 years, we have suppression, and anyone who has studied the history of the 15th amendment or anyone who alive for the last 50 years would be astonished in the of what went on with voting rights act, that in the last two years one of the two political parties has decided their interest to suppress votes and it's based on a lie. that there is voter fraud, and social scientist who s look at the phenomenon agree that this kind of voter impersonation fraud doesn't

exist. sizetudy looks at a sample of a billion votes and they find 30 instances of in person voter which is the equivalent of it not existing. the secretary of state of kansas of his lifeve years trying to discover voter fraud and he found nine cases to prosecute. the state of indiana passed a voter i.d. law based on zero instances. they could find no evidence of in person voter fraud and they harder law to make it to vote. every state that republicans have had a majority in the legislature and in the governorship has passed voter suppression legislation, north arolina is the most extreme example. so in north carolina, it's not only voter i.d. requirement, but eliminating same day registration. it's eliminating automatic 18-year-olds, r it's cutting back early voting, days, because african-americans take advantage of sunday voting the day before the election. shut that down. and that's happening not in one or two places and it's not just

it's every state where the republican party has decided it's in their interest and they control the government. and it's not just true about voter fraud. it's true about all sorts of things. change, about climate it's lying about the effect that repealing the obama care will that it's not going to deny anyone access to healthcare. and lying about tax reform saying that tax reform isn't going to derive to the benefit then of the top 1%, and attacking the tax -- i don't know what the organization is policy center which does nonpartisan evaluations and saying they are or saying the up congressional budget office can't be trusted with regard to obama care repeal even though that's a nonpartisan organization headed by a republican. we don't believe in the same anymore and if people don't believe in facts, it's not oing to matter how accessible historians make their work. we have an even more basic problem which is people are not anymoren the same world and that's a really hard problem to solve, but if we don't solve

in all sorts of trouble. there may have been voter fraud, but until we have a putin, perhaps know.'t >> one of the things that i like i really agree with to just hink we need say people who are using voter tactics as they did 19th and 18th centuries, positionso to stay in of power. but what i do -- as far as i write lity goes, plays. i look at it and say, what venue i i use, what platform can get my point across when it comes to history? class.ost recent play is and it speaks to the anger of

who working class people believe they have been cheat their american dream. i -- cheated out of their dream.n i put it into the context, i think african-americans put the onscience in the constitution that they would read the constitution, feel inclined to so. i don't know if educators, we probably stand on our heads to to to get our point across our students. two people who are in lifelong learning, that's part of what we do agree that sometimes we're not in the same universe but that's even in the classrooms. in our e people classrooms who are not thinking he same way and they have the right to think the way they think. we put the information out there and we have to trust that some to get and oing other people may not but i think that's part of our job, and i legal history, but as an educator, i think you're put the information throughout and hope that it

attaches. add that this isn't something that's new. when i was looking at 1942, i evidence a lot indicators were upset over the fact, we don't know our history. we're involved in this worldwide conflagration is because we don't know our civics they aren't teaching it and the statistics about how many people were graduating from colleges without any civics or history was alarming so we've got to fix that for the greatest generation. and so, i have a feeling that 70 saying, m now we'll be people don't know anything. but we can't give up. i really don't, you know, we've ways find newer, better to relate that, but on the other lot of give them a junk. and it's hard to distinguish and what al evidence you really want to hear, and that's kind of the human condition. any way to get past that right now. about, der how we think

how we should be thinking about public history. know since eople, i i became a historian, one of the me t things when people ask what i do, and they get this look on their face and they say, history, you know. and so most of us aren't -- most people aren't going to end up in our classrooms, right? r they are going to take the survey class that is they have they didn't test out -- >> or watch c-span as a result of a.p. most people in this country get lucky istory, if we're otherwise, ms, hollywood. use these -- the

ossibility of affecting hollywood or museums or how we know? public history, you do we respect public history elevate it or is it not scholarly enough? we're one of the things seeing here is that the not always what's regular people in the public. public. >> i'll take a slightly more optimistic view. public history is a good example. yes. public opinion polls show many people don't know much about our history or civics. the same thing was true in the progressive era. case that your average person can't answer many basic questions about this. there is actually a great deal of interest in history in the country. much of it expressed through attendance at museums.

of new museum african-american history and culture has been swamped by people. you can't get in. far more people have come to it even hey anticipated and the most optimistic projections. historical t other societies, museums, is very point, d more to the maybe, the presentation of these places is very good and up to date. you know, it has really improved the past generation. partly because scholarly historians, exhaustive historians have begun to view something ory as that's important. not just a side issue as you uggest, and value that sort of thing. i've worked with museum exhibitions, many of my colleagues have done that. historical society, chicago historical society. he museum in washington, gettysburg, many very fine historians have been involved if

that -- in that. those who go to those places are getting a much more sophisticated and much more, you picture , bittersweet of the american past without, know, without trying to just depress everybody, showing the faced as ems we've well as the many great chievements of american society. that won't translate one-on-one into a supreme court decision or nto any particular political position but it's valuable when citizens in a democracy do have a better sense of history than used to, and the history has for a generation or two been created by historians who, challengedeally have the old narratives is now very, very widespread. how good many y american history text books are

in colleges used and high schools. they are very candid about the istory of slavery, the history of segregation. the history of labor conflict and other things which used to really ignored or downplayed in text books. the practical consequences of that are, it's mpossible to say, but i'm actually more upbeat about the history inowledge of the country, despite many contrary, i'll certainly admit. >> i would conquer with what heard.just i'm old enough to remember when he nation was mesmerized by a tv show on commercial tv called "roots." everyone watched it. i'm impressed with the work civil war and on vietnam and on baseball and on jazz. and i'm also very impressed, and

make this point very forcefully, if i can, with the ork that you've seen by the historians on this panel in through lobal stories the experiences of individuals. murdered in front of his child.nd the erson who goes through trauma of growth and leaving a city, leaving a part of the country. story, those stories that you hear individually, you hear cold case, but it's eally about a person, and as as pointed out, there is no statute of limitations on murder. brooklyn law school, i taught 16 years, i always showed the film about

nuremberg. judging the role of lawyers and i refer to as a riminal enterprise of murder incorporated state. these are important things to them both at how the global level but also through the personal stories of are going through it. and the historians you have here are very adept at telling the individual story to make the point and i think that is so is incredibly powerful, i'm very optimistic although i'm realize that historians what good work they are doing, and i think they should be commended for that. really do. >> i just have one, going back, to books, i'mring thinking, eric, on the college-level, but -- college.school, junior >> well, but here's the reason why i'm concerned, because then

up, where alism pops we have texas, it's changed its think it's mcgraw hill, they decided that slavery condition of arizona,s, and then in i believe where the school board said that they are no longer classes allow certain to be taught about what happened to native americans. censorship is there as well the are telling of history, the decision that we're not going to at the painful parts and maybe that's why this country emains so immature when it comes to race. every country has something that's deep seeded in the fabric. religion.e it could be color. it could be anything else. in this country, the original in is race and the oppression of people of color. but this country refuses to mature look. a maybe a truth and reconciliation commission that should have but ned but didn't happen, something has to make sure that we don't take the privilege of

escape and people decide they going to look at history intentionally because they feel like they don't want to be be ered, they don't want to called out and they don't want to feel the bane of it. stance, people have a too, in the writing of the history books, in their sanitizinsanitizing, is to some people, not knowing anything about history, not nothing what really happened. >> i think there was someone with a question in this section. >> i think this whole conference begun to answer the question i am a high school teacher, and i also teach a and i n social justice, also have to believe that power.ge can bring just watching my students who, really, have grown up i guess we all do, in a bubble, and they think their reality is reality that everybody seems to share. nd so when they become aware

that the reality they have lived is not the reality that a lot of people in this country optimistic, 'm based on what i see from my students, and i would like, you have given me so much that i'm back to my t taking classroom. i just wanted to know as teaches who really maybe a broader spectrum of kids professors do, and i think high school teachers, that, we reach a lot of kids, what advice do you those of us teaching history to 17-year-old kids and what can teachers do to engender in our students this and this r difference appreciation for history, which,

really nd, leads you to be a good citizen? looking for ust to help us high school folks. folks. >> you know, i have probably taught fewer years than everyone here, so i'm not necessarily the best one to up.k but i come at it from a different -- i'm not a trained as you know. different a lot of things. i think students, sometimes even against my better instincts i have to just trust the students and trust them to reach that moment where the light bulb goes off. and to be patient with them. pounce to be ready to when they are ready. ometimes i'm asked a question and i'll wait a long time, and it's not that they don't know or

curiosity or e don't have something they want to ask. t's just that they are uncomfortable in that environment. is this the right time to raise my hand? if i get it wrong? in this world we have built this culture where it's almost -- it's humiliating to be wrong. to know they can be wrong. and, well, you don't know, take stab. you know, and anyone who laughs is kick out of the class. i mean, i think -- to me, probably the greatest gift i had of a professional you e other than personal, know, is the opportunity to have worked with gene roberts on the write that book and to explore that history and dwell in the joy of the counter narratives, too. awe of how close we came to in that election that i

1948, about earlier, in again, very few people, i'm just saying the obvious to people who forever, teaching this few people expected harry truman had lostt let's say he and dewey had won. how might history have been over something far reater than who would be elected president and vice president? and that all comes down to who dewey's running mate was. earl warren. had been vicerren president of the united states, there is just no way he would have been chief justice of the and we all know you know, from other sources, that earl warren, the other things you were talking about him, drove decision and made it unanimous because this nation survive a split division on brown versus board.

he brought several justices along. that's one person acting in the greatest interest of this he wouldn't have been there if there hadn't been unexpected turn in that lection and students get charged when they are allowed to offer -- spend time doing the what if. too much want to spend time on that because you've got to get to what actually they get but i do find sparked by little things and we just have to pounce on those. idea.s just one small >> this is almost a trivial suggestion and i'm sure, you've been teaching history for a long already do these things, i would think, you know, on ing videos like the eyes the prize video, especially for high school students, so they an empathize, they can sympathize with high school students who are asked to do something morally courageous. there are a lot of those.

there is a fabulous kent burns on jack johnson, black heavyweight champion who is basically exiled from boxing and then hrown in jail for some concocted charges when he woman.d a white students like stories. they are mesmerizing and i think tudents get drawn into that sort of thing. and i think this is something that facing history does, facing you know about this, so put students in a position where moral uld have to make choices that historical actors had to make. ould you be willing to hide jews in nazi germany? what's your position on kaepernick? would you be willing to take a knee during the national anthem when everyone is looking at you ecause you feel like this is a really courageous thing to do? udges confronted with fugitive slave clause cases, abolitionist judges, are you supposed to resign, are you supposed to the law to reach the right result? do you just go along because you

follow oath of office to the law? those are things that kids can with. resonate >> i don't teach high school so i don't want to give you any to say, thank you. > but i do teach a lot of freshmen because i like those first year students. the first thing i try to remind how little i knew. so before i start getting too it, i remember just how arrogant i was. nothing. and, as one of my professors in you school once told me, can never reach anybody while you're too busy condescending to them. so, i teach a class, i teach at the university of kentucky so class for fresh men on modern kentucky and i tell thing the first day you've got a final and it is what are the three biggest problems facing the state. do do we get here and what you want to do about it? so i'm not trying to trick them

on the final exam but let's pend the whole semester thinking about context and solutions, and the essays i get 18 and 19-year-old kids far surpasses anything i read from legislature. [laughter] that.mean >> what about the judiciary. >> nothing about the judiciary, though. >> well, i also like to have my these are nd ophomores, go to the jewish museum, you know, go watch the actually go into the community. and one thing i'm going to have of this is r all happening with the statues, go to the statues we pass every day parks, f these little who were these people, mostly men? who were these men? do?t did they go research their names? that's what was mentioned before about these phones that they have. i tell them, there was a time in

african-americans would be for reading and here you have a phone which is filled with libraries of the do d to access and all you is text. secretly text, but i can see you. i tell they will all the time. but what concerns me, though, in is history is right there front of them and as was pointed out, these are very practical that they are a part of history when walking by that down?e, would they tear it do they think that, you know, put them into the debate, and and i know many of you probably already do current issues in the news, and have actually discuss some of the issues that are taking issue, but me court also the other issues that are taking place because there are so many more dilemmas that are around, and people like hank, who write about these things, they become history later, but the news makes it, ou know, history before it's

history. >> a small suggestion. i teach law students mostly, undergraduates, but when i start talking about voting rights i ave them do the old louisiana literacy test, three pages long, got 10 minutes, you can't get they barely make it through the first page and they all get something wrong, and they are all very well-educated students and it home.s it >> one thing i would like to, i guess, put out here, and i'm not institutions of higher education are being fair to teachers. we're fully that educating people who are going say here to educate, and i that because on most campuses, f not all, at least the ones that i've been on, learning about people who are different you is an elective.

it's not a requirement. and so you have teachers who are leaving colleges and they are not prepared to talk about african-american history, women's history, native american history, and -- but we expect to be able to challenge their students, educate their and understand how to have the tough conversations. work, right? lot of just figuring out how to have he tough conversations, and so if you think things are going to go off, you know, off wire, then avoid them, right? and so we have to train the students.o teach the nd we need to do a better job at that, i think. >> we'll just call on the audience. a question, have sir. question you want

to ask. microphone.l the >> i'm a nashville lawyer, a and r federal prosecutor have a pretty active state and federal criminal defense practice. lot of jury cases, vast noticed the difference between the -- that we get in the state court system n nashville versus what we get in the middle district of tennessee. where i do most of my practice. n the middle district of ennessee, they use the voter registration rolls to assemble the jury and in the state court tennessee driver's license rolls. i don't know what the judge's experience is in the eastern york, but it's remarkable difference. 50 ring in a voirdire of perspectives.

i may have five or six on the panel and in state court it's more representative using the driver license. and what they do in the eastern district of new york? eastern district of new york covers brooklyn, queens, taten island, nassau and we have a nties, so much broader range, that our equivalent. equivalent. for example, in the kings county supreme court, which is our trial court, don't ask me why new york calls the trial court a supreme court, it's a long, you ring story, i can tell the answer, if you're a plaintiff's lawyer and you elieve that you want to have a working class largely minority purposes of a tort case, you'll do anything to destroy diversity jurisdiction, that's going to get you into you may ourt, where

have people already -- epresentatives from the east end of long island. okay? move many years ago to split the eastern two.rict into we have a courthouse facility in central iceland. two things you can see from the moon on earth. the reat wall of china and courthouse in islip. there is only one thing you want to see from the moon and it is islip central courthouse. but it's big. though, for the, obvious reasons, the powers of not to make the eastern district two districts because you would have wound up where giving on segregated housing patterns, you have had very different jury in criminal cases, in you have in than brooklyn. so a long winded answer.

he bottom line is, we have people who live in brooklyn who omplain about having to go to islip for jury duty and people who live at the end of suffolk way y have to come all the into on juries and criminal cases. that was decided by the judges but by the political forces within -- that they do not want to have an exasperated problem. that is the answer. >> what is your source of information in the eastern district for disseminating. registration, we use drivers license, we use a utility bill. we are very aggressive about pulling people and.

-- you would be amazed at how much more effective that is. i hated it when i was a lawyer. i love it now that -- i wonder why the administrative office of the courts would permit the middle district to use voter registration and your wider reach a much with those other sources. >> that is a very good question. [laughter] to ask them. [laughter] >> thank you. is going to here , ie fun or last that you know students are afraid of up at that one of happen here either. they are not going to be many -- to askies to have questions. so please, ask questions. [laughter] >> the nose. morning, the doctor

will come to my desk and he will say, should we do it again and what we -- what should we do it on? selfishly, before he puts me on the spot, i am going to ask you all, what amendment with you have the swan a symposium due in 2018? what amendment would history it matter to in 2018? >> i would not do an amendment, i would do an article. article five. a constitutional convention. we are closer -- two ways to amend the constitution. one is congress proposes an amendment against the supermajority, it goes to the states. stateser is to have the to call a convention. awaye not too many states from having the convention, even though no one is paying attention to that. something like 30 states have called for the convention will -- which can propose amendments and would be voted on by the states.

changeuld be a profound to how we conduct business in the united states. i think it is worth studying. i think you should go for the 19th amendment. the women's suffrage amendment. anniversary of that is coming up pretty soon. in 2008 -- not in 2018, but soon after that. there is a lot to talk about related to that. my two cents. >> t-storm i thunder regarding the 19th -- he stole my thunder regarding the 19th amendment. as a backup, the 25th amendment. which is the amendment on the removal of the president due to a disability. [laughter] >> and whether or not that includes, it was of course drafted with a physical disability in mind. i have been asked and other people have been asked as well,

maybe some people on this panel, whether or not a psychological or emotional disability is covered by the 25th amendment. in all seriousness, yes, the 25th amendment. the first just do one. i think we are going to have moore's -- more free speech issues on what is free speech. i think there is a great deal of confusion about that. so, we have seen a tax on the and nbc just yesterday. so i wonder if maybe a discussion about what the first amendment really means in the 21st century might not be worthwhile. know, i certainly like the idea of the first amendment. i think it offers a great wide range of opportunities. you heard what i said last night. i was being a little funny, but not. first of all, i would go for that which around that amendment

which the greatest numbers of myths have gathered. effectivee can be debunking of myths. i would also like to know more about the second amendment. i just feel like it is something the people on one side of issue feel very strongly about and seem knowledgeable about. though i don't know. because i am not. and people on the other side don't want to talk about it. so i think that could be a good lively discussion. weather here or somewhere else. the second amendment. >> [indiscernible] [laughter] >> my marshals will be here, too. >> we are a private institution.

>> i appreciate everything you all have done about history and tying it into voting rights. it has made me appreciate even more the right to vote. i am concerned about the right to vote for everyone going -- goings a lawyer forward. as a lawyer, what would you suggest i become involved in twos assist in making that a broader right? i am pessimistic about the supreme court over the next five to 10 years being the leader in protecting voter rights. and i think this is going to be a battle that is probably going to have to be fought state by state. sometimes that means using state constitutions.

which has proven to be effective in some states. to vote inights certain state constitutions. some of it will be legislative and regulatory. as lobbying for certain laws or for the repeal of certain laws or four election officials to do certain things. sometimes, shining the light of publicity after certain practices. for example, an alabama when it came out they were closing a bunch of dmv offices where people need to go to get their the decision was reversed. being politically active is a way to protect the right to vote. not just thinking of the litigation strategy. >> all of that is true. it is a sad fact that many, many people who have the right to vote do not vote. far more people choose not to

vote than have their vote suppressed by law or a now. important main -- one effort would be to encourage people to vote. to get out to vote. i think a lot of people whose votes don't realize -- the more people who vote, the less likely it is he will get voter suppression laws. i have urged people without success. no one listens to what i say. use it or lose it. who are mostle likely to have their vote interfered with are the ones who don't vote. alarmedif they are about the prospect of losing the right to vote, they are more likely to come at it. i don't care who they vote for. that is their business. as long as -- what percentage of the population is likely to vote in the 2018 elections?

off term of past elections, well under 50%. gap that could be closed, i think, if more robust efforts to get people to vote and encourage them to vote are out there. i would add to that, and not to that, because i believe it is essential, it is harder to be an informed voter. it is harder because when it comes to those local elections that might be closest to you, the freefally, of your mainstream media, your local newspaper means that fewer and fewer daily newspapers are covering local elections. i pay attention. i used to be managing editor at my local paper. i have seen scads of yards's -- yard signs all over my

neighborhood and i have no idea who these people are. there is no way you will find it not only in print but you will not find online. the league of women voters is not what it used to be when it comes to reaching you at that level. somewhere along the way, i am looking for someone to come along and start that grassroots information campaign just to let you know who they are. i don't mean the two inch bio where someone went to college. i would take that, in some cases against what we have. to theden has shifted voter much more to become more fully informed. not a bad thing to do. that will make it harder for the any of us -- for any of us to persuade people to come -- to become voters. >> a couple quick thoughts in response to that. jason kander who was the losing democratic senator in missouri the last time around, he started

an organization that is specifically focused on protecting the right to vote. it is addressed toward ending the voter suppression that is going on. i don't know what sort of work they are doing that it might be worth looking into that. this could sound partisan, but i don't think it is partisan, the most important thing is to support a political party that supports expanding suffrage rather than the party that supports contracting suffrage. when the democrats were in control in north carolina, they automatically registered 18 euros to vote. they had -- 18-year-olds to vote. they expanded opportunities for early voting days. they expanded the number of polling places. we should change from tuesday voting to weekend voting which is what countries that want people to vote do. one of the political parties supports that and one of the political parties figures out that the best way to win is to contract the poll of voters. these things are connected.

if meryl carlin was the fifth justice, the supreme court would voteriking down suppression. justices have been striking down voter suppression. if more democrats had voted in the 2016 election, maryland garland would be on the court, not neil gorsuch. the other is to do campaign finance reform. this will be an alarmist position. voting only matters if you think the system is still roughly responsive to democratic impulses. most political scientists in the last five or 10 years are reaching the conclusion there is no correlation between what average voters prefer and the output of legislation. the only thing there is any responsiveness to is large donors. there are a lot of examples of this. they give you a couple. 90% to 95% of americans supported expanded background checks after the sandy hook massacre. it could not get out of the

senate. if the united states senate will 95% ofpond to what voters want, we don't have a thing ofative democracy. that is something that benefits the top 0.2% of the population. if you took an opinion poll, you would find fewer than 20% support that. that might very well pass. matterht to vote doesn't if the system is not responsive. now the evidence is the system response to the tens of millions of dollars that the koch brothers spend in every election cycle, not to the preferences of ordinary voters. if we don't figure out a way to solve that problem, we have difficulties. it is a difficult problem to solve. it is impossible when the supreme court thinks there is a first amendment right to spend as much money as you want on politics. you will not have a representative system of democracy if money is the only thing that has called the tune.

i'm sorry to be so pessimistic. >> forget about the american revolution. let's go back to monarchy. founder said, repeatedly at the philadelphia convention, it was crazy to let ordinary people choose the president and one reason why a was crazy is because they would be seduced by some demagogue who promise to make their country great again. [laughter] >> that could never happen, though. but itook 225 years, did. quicklyt want to very -- this is my most recent book, but the subtitle is the naacp and the ongoing struggle for justice. firsthe naacp brought its case which was the supreme court case of win versus united states it wascided in 1915, their first supreme court victory. when they were pushing the vote and you have heard all day how

difficult it was to vote and have few african-americans could vote, it was not a spiritual experience. for some reason, people have, i guess because of barack obama, and you want that from your voting experience, then it is going to be difficult to replicate that. we have to look at voting as what citizens do, as what people have said they need to do in order to have on the representatives who have their values. fromnk we need to get away thinking of voting as a spiritual experience. the price paid that we heard today from hank and others, just from voting, we should just not organize ourselves, we should organize the communities around the needs to vote, not for the spiritual experience, but because it is what we need to do. our democracy requires us to take a role in it. people did this who were

marginalized and had their lives on the line. voting is the baseline, and from there, we should be able to be organized or organize our candidates around who represent our values. put money in their campaigns, if you have some. work for their campaigns. write op-ed. be a part of the political process, as best you can. the suffragettes did it and they do not have the right to vote. the naacp did it and they were marginalized. while these people did it under such dire circumstances and yet i don't understand why we need the fray. about thendering people who have served their and still they lose the vote. i am wondering what we can or should be doing about this group

of people? i believe in some areas, they do get the vote back after. majority of places, if you commit a crime, even if you serve your time, you are no longer eligible to vote. what can and should we be doing about that? this is just another illustration of an issue that has partisan implications. that is why we can't agree on what the solution is. i'm easily, people should not lose the right to vote after their prison sentences are done. the reason why we don't do anything about it is because it is disproportionately affecting african-american and african americans in states like florida and alabama where it is a significant percentage of the black folk that is affected. that is why we are not doing anything about it. you elect a democratic governor of virginia and he decides to pardon everybody all at once and the virginia supreme court says,

no, you can't do that or you can't pardon 200,000 felons. that is not the way the power is supposed to operate. he has to do it one by one. he has to sign 200,000 pardons rather than do it by one fell swoop. he said the expectation is if you do this, it will dump -- it will benefit the democratic party. the republicans will not supported. the voter in mechanism today that has partisan implications will be supported by one party, and opposed by the other. if it has racial implications, you know it will benefit democrats. if you make the change in one direction, republicans will resist it. us not forget, you're right of course that these laws, particularly the florida one was put into place by democrats. >> play in the last person to deny -- >> right. the democrats can't get on their high horse and complain about the republicans putting this in.

this has been on my mind since people0 election when blamed certain number of votes where ralph nader in florida. the democrats had already disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of their own voters in florida. and had been afraid to change it -- fear of alienated alienating many white voters. it is not just the distant past. democrats have control of florida after most blacks were voting for democrat. they didn't change that law. >> and i respond quickly? >> i am trying to the -- >> i am not invested in defending the democratic party as the openly white party, which it was for 100 years after the civil war. i am not trying to defend those democrats. there is another point that is important to make witches democrats, when they get control also do things to and if it

themselves. many democrats and north carolina had control of big government, they expanded suffrage, same-day registration, they and franchised-year-olds. democrats have done their share of gerrymandering. expand theries to suffrage and the other party tries to advantage itself by contracting the suffrage. that does not strike me as morally equivalent positions. >> i would say on the question of felon disenfranchisement, it is a state-by-state battle. things have gotten better because of political action. helen's is a group are not politically strong and able to get change. they have allies. who was stillrist a republican at the time, who pushed in florida to make it much easier to restore voting rights. is warfare when it comes to

protecting voting rights. every state is a different story. the courts are not going to do it. the supreme court shut that door in the 1970's. i have no belief and they will reopen it. although there is an original that it should be unconstitutional. i think there is room for many states for improvement in the process. >> the second section, here i will act as if i am a lawyer. the second section of the 14 amendment -- 14th amendment does anticipate the possibility of dissent -- disenfranchisement of a crime. people do not lose represent his -- representation for that. that would be a hard argument to make. >> the part that is being -- >> that would be a hard argument to win. [laughter] isthe part that is missing

the states decide the qualifications for voters. states can decide the good character is a qualification to vote. if one is arrested and has a felony conviction, they don't have good character and therefore the state, if it does -- the state can say anyone with bad character is denied the right to vote and therefore we are going to deny the felons the right to vote. i want to circle around the three cents row. the other part of the criminal justice issue in this massive incarceration that was triggered thate 13th amendment slavery is abolished except as punishment for a crime. is the fact that we have people in gerrymandering districts for prisons. prisons are located in these towns where they used to be an industry and that industry has

moved overseas or to the southwest or wherever and now the prison is the industry and the present industrial complex where the criminals are the product and it sustains the village or the small town. people work there. they have schools there. they have children. the gardeners, the barber, the dry cleaner, everybody has an prison, and the unfortunately, no one is looking at the prisoners for their interest. the politician is not representing the interest of those who are imprisoned. rule,s back to the 3/5 basically, they are using the bodies of the prisoners in order to count the population and therefore have more state and local and federal funding and political power. those people are not going to be inclined to change the criminal justice laws because they are benefiting politically from those criminal justice laws. >> in new york state, the legislature is -- has a portion

on the population. the prison population is counted as residents of the district. not where they came from. can you declare that unconstitutional, judge? [laughter] >> i could. [laughter] >> new york did work for ending througherrymandering the legislature, but it still is rampant around the country. it is too beneficial for people to lose. it is another part of the system, this need for the imprisoned to benefit financially, politically, etc. of white people for the most part. that we have to look at, what we can do going back to that question, what we can do regarding felony disenfranchisement. that means that we have two say to our legislative bodies, this is not what we want. who haveieve people served their time should be able to have their rights back.

only seven countries where a person's rights are taken away for life based on a felony conviction. >> i would like to make an observation. i find it interesting that as we have an increasing movement ,owards sanctuary cities perhaps sanctuary states, the notion that perhaps the equivalent of liberty laws which were in place before the civil serves as the bulwark, to some extent, for chief of , and according -- in according freedom to individuals, you might find in the near future that some of protections and some of those powers according

to the state might serve to protect against some of the concerns that people who are engaged in politics they might have. to limit the powers of states to from federalon governments, because there may be implications that progressives find they do not like in the near future. >> we have time for one more question. >> are there any practical remaining variances between states in the ability of serving or deployed military to vote? whether in the present day, there are any

state-by-state important variances in the ability of serving military, deployed military, to cast their votes? >> there is federal legislation that protects overseas military voters. >> in all elections? in federal elections. it was actually the last action thatoting congress took. i think it was john cornyn and chuck schumer who were the ones who were behind that. was, i'mact, which thinking maybe 10 years ago that came into play. overseas military voters have tremendous hurdles. now the hurdles are going to be even greater because there is a email concern about using and faxes and the internet as means of transmitting your vote because of the problems of potential security with those

methods. people at the battlefield have a real logistical issues aside from all the other issues they face. i wanted to take this time now as we wrap up to thank the i should say the roundtable participants, for your wonderful -- your continued sharing of your knowledge and wisdom with all of us. i want to thank also the here.ce and for being over tong to turn it -- does anyone? i echo those words of thanks, both to those of our scholars who have spent your day and expertise with us. and also to all of you for being

symposium.his those of you who are familiar with suwannee know the expression that if something happens here once, it is a scandal. if it happens twice, it is a tradition. this is the second annual symposium. i think we have now effectively made the transition from the scandalous to the traditional. i hope this means we will have a chance to gather again this time next year. to continue the discussion at the same high level of engagement that you all have given one another and all of us. please join me audience in thinking -- thanking. [applause] i believe we are adjourned. thank you all for coming. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

is 48 hours of programming on american history every weekend on c-span3. follow us on twitter at c-span history for information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest history news. next on lectures in history, professor william harris teaches a class about abraham lincoln, the civil war battle of antietam, and the issuing of the emancipation proclamation in 1862. his class is about an hour and 15 minutes. prof. harris: today, we have reached in some ways the pivot point of the war and the pivot point of the entire class. the months when a war to save the union also became a war to end slavery. that took lots of politics and it also took lots of fighting, including the bloodiest single