york city. go ahead, nancy. hello. a professor testified in front of the kerner commission and wrote the book in which he documented that in all the --ies across the country they felt they had no other recourse as professor fogelson said. it showed people that the conventional thought that the , and itn the ghettos

was an important piece of research. elizabeth: one of the major conclusions that the current commission highlighted was that there was a wide swath of people who participated and it wasn't , these were young kids who were causing trouble and inherently violent.

>> does this has anything to do and thetball players national anthem? i think until we foster a more equitable and inclusive society and really deal with the exploitation that the number of the groups are going to continue to see this kind of three assistants. >> what is your take away of this conference. elizabeth: it is my association. it is a wonderful organization. i think personally this is the point i have been making again and again we can't understand

anything about the president until we look at the past. present to then public and audiences that we can come to terms with the united states but worldwide what some and movestakes were forward and identify alternative pathways. >> what are those conversations or collaborations like? gettingh: part of it is conversations with old friends and people who have written books and owning your own ideas, when you get gets to panels and hear presentations on subjects. what is exciting about the historical association is that with me as a historian, i can go to medieval history and learn

that an entirely new field i might not normally get exposed to. that is one of the exciting things. in woodland,next north carolina. thank you for waiting. go ahead, please. sharon: i am so happy to be a part of this c-span conversation . i have never really heard of the report. it seems like there was a concerted effort to hold back that martin luther king was instrumental in getting president johnson to act at all in response to the poverty and the problems that the people were having. one of the books that i read

said that we have called you and try to get in touch with you and you have not responded so now we are coming to you. thank you, sharon pair will get a response. elizabeth: one of the truths that we learned from the 1960's and black history and general is that policymakers are not going to make changes out of the goodness of their hearts. it takes dedicated organizations and protests in order to push policymakers to ship their view on things. matter,h black lives there has always been some crucial things. him wide andhind diverse who came together to say that the african-americans deserve to vote. we're joined from louisiana.

go ahead, please. that the that the role whatttee plays, given emerged in june of 66 -- 1966 into black power, to what extent do you think the concept that the struggle was about getting power? to what extent do you think that influenced the uprising or the revolts in 1967 and 1968? many people seem to stress the spontaneity of the uprisings. an intellectual person must admit there was spontaneity. was there some degree of organization and motivation to the need for organization as organization?

elizabeth: this is an important question that came up in the panel. sustainedothing organization to the rebellion. there is thist radicals like black panthers are behind the uprising. those have not really been proven by historians. i think the grievances and the social economic reality is that we are a breeding ground for the civil rights movement and but our movement and uprisings were rooted in the same and demand for an end to the exclusionary institutions that were operating in african-american communities

and an outside police force and community power and control. these were grievances behind the uprisings and the more formal arts of this were rooted in the same concern. >> is there one part of this report that stands out 50 years later for you personally? elizabeth: the nation is moving toward one white one black and unequal. these are the catchphrases that got picked up. is on american racism as being one of the core problems that the u.s. has confronted and is really important. it is why we are steel -- still dealing with these. >> what do you treat -- teach? elizabeth: i am about to teach african-american history from course,l war, prison mostly within 20th-century u.s.

history and african-american studies. >> professor elizabeth hinton. thank you for being us. elizabeth: thank you so much and thank you for your calls. >> we will continue to show you the scene as our live coverage continues on this saturday.

ofyou are looking at scenes the annual gathering of the american historical association and we have been live all day here on c-span3. we will continue in the afternoon. we conducted a number of interviews yesterday which are available at c-span.org. to welcome john lawrence

the book the book class of 1974. john: it is difficult to write a book about congress because it is a very large institution. people don't really understand the nature of the body and how it functions and how it addresses and how it is organized. this class came in immediately after watergate scandal. it had a lot of people who came out of traditional politics and out of environmental or feminist politics. they joined with a group of very frustrated reformers who had been unable to democratize and .iberty dies -- liberal

was thecratic caucus majority and they were able to effectuate changes that made significant reforms in the operations of the house. it gave greater ability to younger members and more liberal members to raise issues that had been prevented from coming to the debate. there were greater opportunities to have legislation and amendments considered. houseng so, they made the a more democratic and open institution. the book also looks at the fact that these changes were dramatic changes in politics and american society. some of the reforms that were

implemented initially also became very opportunistically used by minorities to bring forth issues that had been prevented from raising. some issues were contentious and divisive, and the interplay between the younger more progressive factions and increasing conservative rising republican majority really were what we see as bipartisanship. >> if you look at gerald ford, a member of the house representing grand rapids, michigan, he came to power as a republican role himself. did he have a unique appreciation for what democrats in the house were doing in 1975 and 1976 during when he was president? >> not really. he was resentful of the fact that he sought reformers as being disrespectful to the institution. many of the democratic leaders

saw them that way as well. like the republican reformers and they beganer to emerge in the late 1970's, the democrats view their own party as part of the problem and they institutionalized power to conglomerate in the hands of southern, very conservative members who were impossible to dislodge and who prevented a lot of legislation from taking place. evennk president ford, though he had spent decades in the house of representatives and in the minority, of course, he viewed the institution very referentially. he looked at some of the changes that were forced upon the institution by the reformers in a very negative way. he was quite outspoken by the fact that he felt the institution was under assault from the class of 74 and their

allies. >> based on that come any parallels to the tea party movement with the house conservative caucus today? importante is an distinction. not all rebellious members are the same. one of the differences is -- and this was misunderstood, the class of 1974 did not view the house itself in a negative fashion. it did not view the institution or even politics in a negative fashion. many of the numbers had come up through the political system as others in the house had. they viewed the reforms they were instituting as a way of democratizing and allowing the house to function in a more efficient and representative manner. i would argue that what you see today with the freedoms caucus and people before them in

2010 and 2000 12, is a feeling that the government and congress is in part the enemy. it is a question of a question of scaling down and minimizing legislative activities of congress, not modernizing it so that it can address contemporary issues. there were significant offenses. >> was water gates a partisan or an't -- was watergate partisan or constitutional battle? john: it was from a movement that was rising in the late 1960's in response to what historians are calling a historical presidency. it was part of congress to reinsert itself for a number of reasons. the presidency had accumulated far greater power certainly than the founders ever intended and nimbly and use media and executive orders in response

to national crises, whether that was right domestically or international security issues in usurpedat really what the congress should have been doing. late 1960's and accelerating in the early 1970's was theartisan basis congress reasserted itself. when watergate came along, initially there was an institutional defense of president nixon and many of the republican members of the judiciary committee and others stood with the president for a long time and maybe some parallels to what we see happening here. until the steady above information and internal documents and tapes made the situation untenable, many of and in a sense it

was too late. >> we are talking with author and historian john lawrence. he is also an adjunct member of d.c.. 202 is the nation' area code. 202 is the nation's202-704, 80 n >> the media changes have played a significant role in this rise of partisanship and polarization . he usesatrick moynihan, a you are entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts. your, you are entitled to own facts, not simply a false fax, but because of the

emergence of cable and lower costs of entry for people to secure access to television because of talk radio, and particularly because of social internet, now have the ability to reinforce their own beliefs as opposed to be challenged. the newsmakers don't have to make their way to the news filters. walter cronkite did not just read, he had to pass a pretty thorough credibility test to make it onto the evening news. when i was a kid, you listened to one of the three evening news. that was about it. today, you don't have that. you have an ideological breakdown which is affecting our political system and society in general. it is reflected in the media and in the press and has the tendency to be enforced.

things peoplel have. the difference in the 1960's and 1970's was that the press was much more limited and they viewed themselves as a more neutral party and investigative party in the public discussion. they were not there to defend or to reinforce or a specifically to attack one group or another. in the case of watergate, it was the very neutrality of the press which had such enormous impact. i remember when walter cronkite in the late 1960's determined that the war in vietnam was a horrible mistake and criticized president johnson's's president johnson's proclamation. i don't think you can say

anybody in the media has that authority now. >> why did you write the book and what one thing surprised you when researching it? the reason that i wrote came to d.c.i initially in 1975. i worked on the hill. i was disturbed by the two -- the degree when i changed to academics that the almost cartoonish way this class was characterized. -- theit was generally viewed a group of rambunctious people who had no respect for the institution who showed up. an informal history of the house of representatives as written by , therenguished historian were many hundreds of pages of history and congress devoted one paragraph to this class. it almost was dismissed in that

way. what surprised me as i did the book and interviewed over 40 was thein both parties diversity of the class. number one, there was also a strong sense that they had come to washington to accomplish something and specifically to end the war in vietnam. so than to more reform congress. the irony is that even though they were known as congressional reformers, when i asked them, did you come outraged by the seniority system, by the lack of ability to raise issues, by secrecy and lack of transparency, and everyone said no. they said they came to end the war in vietnam. >> are any still in congress today. john: the only one who is still there is chuck grassley.

he came as a house member in 1975, and transitioned to the senate. member from house minnesota was elected in 1975 who retired a few years later. he came back after the longest hiatus in congressional history to regain his seat and i think it was 2012 here he was gone for 32 years, and he is still there. who is a senator from massachusetts was elected in 1976 in a special election he does not really count as a class that was elected in 1974 in what i am talking about. >> historian john lawrence. our first color is kim joining us from fairfield, ohio. good afternoon. kim: thank you for taking my call period i am curious that now we have seen the congressional checks and balances in the executive branch

relying on nonpartisan action, do you think the laws need to be changed in order to prevent this happening in the future? >> thinks, kim. john: -- thanks, kim. john: congress is not conducting adequate oversight and not investigating president trump, and that is troubling. yes, to some extent that is true. i do think that if you look at the history of congressional oversight, which is one of the reforms that emerged out of the erargate and the vietnam and blossomed following the election of the class of 1974. most committees were required to create oversight subcommittees. oversight tends to have a partisan ring to it. when democrats took control of congress in 2006, congress ran

oversight of president bush for the war in iraq and so security and handling of the economy. when president obama was elected by democratic congress, they diminished significantly its level of oversight. that has been the case when the republicans gain control, they are very aggressive in oversight . now president trump was collected and they have diminished it. i think one of the contrasts between the period i am writing about in the current period, is those that remember the watergate hearings will remember that some of the most devastating questions were asked , the keyicans questions what did he know and when did he know it was asked by howard baker, a republican senator from tennessee.

at some point, those crises rise .o a bipartisan level evidently, we are not at that level right now. of course, the majority makes the determinations about what hearings are held. >> the field essentially was well set when richard nixon resigned in august 1974. there were a handful of september primaries. for the most part, the candidates who announced 21 did so because -- announced, did so because of the watergate investigation and vietnam. john: i ask if watergate was the major factor and most said, no. a lot of those decisions to run 1973 and in december january 1974. watergate was still an evolving issue at that point. we tend to think of tapes and , and incourt decisions

terms of motivating people to run, watergate did not come up very often as an excavation for what was motivating them. >> why did the democrats win? was it because republicans stayed home and democrats were energized or a combination? john: i think it was a combination. i think the largest factor in terms of voter interest come and i mentioned this in the book, was the state of the economy. certainly, the decision by president ford to pardon former president nixon which occurred after -- a month after he became president, that was a devastating blow. -- blow to the republicans. i mentioned that jimmy blanchard who was running in michigan and later becomes aboutor heard the story the pardon and immediately began

to yell, we are going to win, we are going to win. when you look back at where the public was and what the public mood was in late october and early november of 1974, be it now had faded and watergate had faded. the overwhelming issue was the economy. president ford, until his death, defended the pardon. was it the right decision historically? john: i am not sure i am in a position to say. there were continuing issues that i talk about in the book. continuing concerns that a deal had been made and to their work efforts made in the judiciary committee early in the congress in 1975 to further investigate whether or not the chief of haig, had goner

to the president and offered a deal to president nixon that he would resign and president ford would pardon him. that was never really proven. there were a number of people who made that argument. there were some members of the felt it was4 who important to put the issue behind us and move on with the issues that were before the country. >> our guest is john lawrence. he is the other of a new book coming out in march titled, "the '74."of patricia, your next, in milwaukee. patricia: good afternoon. , so ifa long question you bear with me. are the ultra-elite writing our laws and if so, are we looking at a future of oligarchy

controlling in our decisions of laws and oversights, placing party before country? the reason i ask that is because and thet of wealth social responsibility is. for example, in 1977, 60% of the income was in control of the ultra-wealthy. now, it is even higher. are we looking at a partisan party for the future? i know there is always hope in things as far as getting this country back on track and operating as a democracy. what are your thoughts, sir? you, patricia. that is a big topic. john: tricia, i will tell you that i am often asked what do you consider to be the most serious problems -- patricia, i am often asked what do you

consider to be the most searched problems in politics. the one that bothers me most is the one you identify, and that is the role of money in politics. issues are other solvable. it may not be solvable in the timeframe you or i would write. these are issues that the political process should be capable of addressing and historically has been able to address often on a bipartisan basis. with the decisions of the supreme court, however, and citizens united in the mccutchen case and others, the role that money has been allowed to play in politics has a danger of overwhelming the system. some of the other subjects i mention, because they are supreme court decisions, it is hard for congress to gain control of the situation in congress cannot simply pass a

citizensoverturns the united case. it cannot simply pass a law that imposes restrictions on spending. even if it were to establish a public financing system, which many people would like to see, or a disclosure system which the house of representatives had passed when the democrats were in the majority, that does not independent other expenditures which are vastly more in most cases than the money the members have to go out and raise. i think that presents the most serious challenge. i think you saw some of that influence played out most , wherey in this tax bill over 80% of the benefit will go to the top 1% of the country. that is pretty hard to square with democratic government, even if you believe it has a similar effect. it is not consistent with democratic governing.

we are going to have to, as a country, figure out some way to figure a constitutional amendment that authorizes congress to legislatively address the issue or have -- has a constitutional amendment. if you have hundreds of dollars in undisclosed money going into senate races to help and hurt a candidate, i think that is extremely disruptive of the , and itic system presents the most dire danger to the future of democracy. >> lets get to two quick points. the ftc was created in the wake of watergate and watergate and campaigns -- of watergate and in campaigns. was created that it would both regulate elections and money and establish

restrictions on how much money could be spent on elections. but the restrictions were thrown out by the supreme court within only a year. only a couple years after they enacted -- they were enacted. you had operational restrictions in place in terms of disclosure and responsibility for how campaigns are organized. the restrictions on spending were thrown out. envisioned athave independenthow expenditures would have exploded. and the ftc itself is not affecting institution. its own members would admit to that. -- one isu really

extremely hard-pressed to make an argument that there is an effective mechanism for either regulating or even disclosing the world of special interest money in politics. it is not just corporate money. there is lot of other money. there is high-tech money and labor money. have to be extraordinarily naive to believe that much money can flow into the system and not distort the operation. >> which we saw in the citizens united case. the other point is the makeup of the house and senate generally in 1984, how did -- 1974, how did it change in 1975? john: the senate picked up 49 seats. the democrats had what many people assumed to be at that point a vetoproof majority. one of the stories i tell in the

book, which is very significant in explaining the history of that era, was that there was a great deal of frustration against the leadership of the congress a cause were not able to overturn resident for's veto. there was expectation -- president ford's veto. there was expectation and it was not as overwhelming, but resident ford vetoed measures that were high on democratic priority list as far as legislation. when he came to veto override, they failed. the reason was for organizational purposes that democrats had to 92 seats, more than you need for override, but the party was still heavily composed of southern conservatives who rarely voted with the democratic party on policy grounds. many of the chairman's work

removed and a number left voluntarily in the 1970 six term. they voted 70% to 80% of the time with republicans. -- 1976 term. to 80% of the time with republicans. they were in the majority 21994. toy were there because -- 1994 pier 1's they started to --.est the seats -- 1994. they started to contest the seats and it changed significantly. you would argue that partisan lines formed much more dramatically, partly because you had ideological realignment but also because the numbers were narrowed. there wasn't just a presumption

of democratic control. that dramatically changes the operations for the congress. >> the book comes out in march or john lawrence is our guest. john is joining us on the phone from san francisco. good afternoon. >> i was thinking about the parallels that people pointed out between russia gate and watergate, interestingly, one of these similarities is the dnc is a central player in the watergate. we had a break that was investigated by the police and watergate, but the dnc with the .ussian was allegedly hacked the intelligence report that came out a year ago pointed out clearly that they were highly confident, which meant they were not actually certain that there was no certainty to the intelligence findings.

i find it interesting that people equate the two, when on the one hand you had people that were caught red-handed in police therts and on the other, server the dnc had was never .ven turned over to the fbi they had a third-party do it. you actually have no proof of a con in the russia story, but yet in watergate, you had a clear crime. i am wondering how closely you followed it and i would like to hear your thoughts on my comment. thank you. john: well, john, it is a little early in the russia probe to determine exactly what the parallels with watergate might or might be -- might or might not be.

with watergate, people were caught red-handed. they were caught in the dnc having broken into secure facilities. they were quickly able to be tied back to the president's reelection committee and it spun out of control from there. , we really of russia just don't know the answers. one of the concerns that is raised is that much of what actually occurred tracing back the money and the organizational controls to the white house, was uncovered by the special prosecutor and of course president electio nixon fired h. that helped develop the bipartisan support for the escalation of the watergate investigation. i think that is one of the

reasons people are so concerned of the continuing speculation that president trump might take that kind of action in the case of the special prosecutors m nueller. .n seeing how it --mueller i am seeing how it is playing out. i think we need to allow that to play itself out. >> the new movie out the post looking at the pentagon papers and the role the "washington played in 1971, its role in 1972 investigating what happened in june 1972, historically, is it overplayed or was its role significant? john: it was very significant because they had access to a leaker who was able to give them money, the so-called "deep

throat," who was able to push in certain directions at key times when it may have been difficult for woodward or ernestine or the other report -- bernstein or the other reporters theree gone themselves. it was courageous of the "washington post" to do that. you are taking on the leadership of the country with enormous implications. i am not sure that anyone at the outset realized watergate was going to be the resignation of the presen president. the role of the press was absolutely critical. .> let's go to oregon next jack, you are on with jack lawrence. jack: good morning, mr. lawrence

period and delighted to see you just did -- good morning, mr. lawrence. i am delighted to see you just and one of the big issues i worked on was the amendment of the freedom of information act. the freedom of information act of that period changed government significantly. it was one of the great disclosure things. nowadays, we hear hardly anything at all of the freedom of information act, and the most aggressive users appear to be watchers, which is a right wing, radical option. >> jet, what were you doing in washington, d.c. at the time? : i was a spokesperson and my job was to

work on the freedom of information act. from the barack your see, you can see the attention -- from the bureaucracy, you can see the attention drawn to the papers of the federal government. one of the great deficiencies that they did not act on at that make congress not themselves subject to the freedom of information act. that is old history, but it is still intense and everything that is going on today reminds me of it. thank you very much. i am going to buy your book. >> thank you for adding your voice to the conversation. john: i appreciate that. and or, you had one of the great members of the class. you touch on a key issue here that was one of the more central

focuses of reformers, and that is the issue of openness in government and transparency in government. realize people don't that in the late 1960's and -- the970's, government federal government operated largely in the dark. committee meetings and subcommittee meetings and even the operations of the house floor were not televised. they were not subjected to any kind of broadcast. in addition to that, committees to not produce reports and produce materials about legislation as it went to the floor. all the information was held very tightly by the committee chairman. even the votes in committee and subcommittee and in the committee of the whole on the house floor where 80% of the business is technically done were unrecorded votes.

they would be literally told to monitor them a secretly. problems wasins -- it was hard to hold people culpable. you did not know how they were voting. one of the arguments is that we have to hold people accountable. we need to know how they are voting. there were steps taken from 1973 to 1975 to open the congress up to allow television to come in -- allow c-span2 come in which did not happen later in the 1970's, their were arguments this was a bad idea. they said people would play to the camera and make it more theatrical and less legislative. that may occur to some extent. certainly, some people learned how to use the coverage, both to themselves and to use more liberalized rules to

enforce full on controversial issues for political reasons rather than substantive legislative reasons. we talk about those as unintended consequences of reform. i also think it is important to note there is a bit of a revisionism which looks back and says we are able to do things when everyone was in broadcast and publicized. the example that is often use is the civil rights act of 1964, where a lot of republicans, moderates, and liberals were voting for key legislation in subcommittees and in committees. votes that would have been difficult for them to have cast if their votes were recorded and if the debates were being televised. people say, if that happens those types of agreements could not take place and the nature of the legislative process would change.

as with virtually everything you do, i have found in congress and maybe in life, there are always unintended consequences that come with the intended reforms. in march of 79, c-span2 came on air. next in march i mark. you. thank i really appreciate this. i appreciate those who started c-span. there are some good things to come out of corporate america. c-span is one of them. i am a prospective author and am working on a book. i am looking at some of the things that have been happening. since the iran and

afghan wars and the patriot act, it is a bad thing. this is not about me, but it is throughts who are going morale problems. i think there is a gray area that needs to be ironed out. i will get to the question. and itatching a book seems like we are in another grapes of wrath. mentioned and i took a youtube video that rome was innate quality they had great military. we are at .89. we are doing badly. debt.e

i believe we are headed downward, not upward. president trump mentioned that he wants to get us over 3% growth. according to some, we will be facing strong headwinds. that is what the economist said. he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. >> i am going to stop you there because we only have a few things left. thank you very much or the phone call from pennsylvania. john: some of the concerns you have raised certainly were very evident during the debate on the recent tax bill. not only the role of special interest money, but to what stimulativeind of effect that adding at least eight trillion and a half dollars to the debt would generate. trillion and a half dollars to the debt would generate. they did not get a sufficient

airing. you did not have economists called before congress to give their analysis. -- the regularhe order was not followed in terms of markup's and hearings and floor debate. people were being asked to vote on very expensive legislation .hat they had never seen that would have to medic impact on almost every aspect of our national economy. for whatever reason this is occurring, i would tend to agree. this is a very dangerous way to do legislation. i would contrast it to the kinds of reforms that were initiated with the class of 1974 as i talk about in the book, where they were going in exactly the reverse process. they wanted more hearings, they wanted more testimony on the

record, they wanted to offer amendments on the floor. at one point, when some of the older leadership in the 1976, theycaucus in said it has gone too far. some of the republicans were using amendments to make us look really bad. we have to rollback the number of amendments that can be used. george miller from california got up and said, if that is the price of democracy, and someday we will be in the minority and we won't want our amend its restricted. saw whether itwe was the amend for the affordable care act or the tax bill with the kind of open and more accountable government that reformers in 19 74 insisted upon. >> you spent nearly four decades working on capitol hill and also for pelosi. jack, you get the last call for

providence, rhode island. if you could be brief, please. jack: the question i have is, you have the scandals and it is always the republican administration. reagan was ultimately cleared. why are you laughing? the point i want to make is you take a look at all the scandals and there is never a democratic administration, and they were all super clean and super honest. kennedy.at ted he killed a woman and got away with it. he actually killed a woman. >> let me just jump in on one point. bill clinton is a democrat who was impeached. would you put him in the same category? jack: he was impeached but ultimately cleared. for the crimes he committed, he

should be in a prison cell right now. >> jack, thank you for the call. john: i would be the last person to suggest one party or the other came into government or operated a government without any faults. i would agree. i would point to president johnson, who probably had a rep. doyle: presidency. i do not think the issue of scandal or inappropriate reputable presidency. if we are going to see an improvement from the regard that the american people have for politics and for people who are engaged in our political system is to try to move beyond this scandal focus and beyond the type of partisanship and try to re-create a sense that we are all in this together and that nobody is going to get

everything they want, but you have to have a process that has integrity. you have to have a process that is willing to subject major policy questions to debate and to re-examination and to change. that is the way you build public confidence. you have an open, accountable process where you try to move special interest out to the maximum extent you can. that is the real challenge and desperate need. a, if you go, class of 1974. we need people to come in with realism and confidence that you can rebuild a system that the american people will agree with. >> in researching this book, you how many did you interview? john: over 40. >> the book is called the class of '74. thank you for being with us. >> you are watching the american

association gathering and northwest washington, d.c. up next, a panel will begin momentarily focusing on the post-civil war and the era of reconstruction. following that, we will talk with a professor to take more of your phone calls as we continue life here on c-span three's american history tv. [indiscernible conversations]

>> these kids were half brothers and sisters and first cousins. >> wow. >> yeah. [laughter] >> actually you are not. you do not know if you wanted the house, if he liked the house .

[indiscernible]

>> it had been fictionalized, right? it is a book by a check -- czech author, a very slim volume. >>, thanks a lot. [indiscernible]

>> are you ready for an introduction? continue to work on noring to bring eric con in virtually, we will get started concretely. we are humbled and honored by the turnout, and really look forward to taking questions and comments from the audience. as you know, we are here because a year ago, almost exactly a year ago today, president obama created the first ever national park site devoted to reconstruction. as we all know, the united states has dozens of sites , buted to the civil war

until january 2017, we had none devoted to reconstruction. fittingly, the site that was designated was in beaufort, south carolina. we set up this roundtable to bring together some of the people who played crucial roles in making that happen. chanceed to give them a to tell us what we should be learning from it, and how historians can be helpful and interesting partners in those processes of improving public memorials and other places across the country, and to hear some amazing tales of how it came to be. i am breakdowns, university -- greg downs, university of california. quickly do a sound test for this video, so bear with me for one second. array, we are in good shape. i am from northwestern

university, and i will be introducing the panelists now. we decided that every single extorton this panel is narrowly accomplished, there are 150 things we could say about each of them. to cut right to the chase, we will be very short introductions. i want to add that unfortunately, mike allen was today.e to be here in case you are going from your written program, molly ross is here, and we have done a lot of work for the parks service. she said nobody could take michael's place in this, but she will speak a little bit about the perspective of someone who worked within the park service on this project. could not or -- foner make it, but he will come in through a video he made specifically for this event. we will first hear from secretary bruce babbitt, who served as governor of arizona from 1978-1987, and was the united states

secretary of the interior from 1993-2000 one. he is acting as counselor to governor brown of california, working on issues of water reform. a professor at columbia university and the author of many acclaimed books. 1988, andlished in his book was a major reinterpretation of the period that set the agenda for future work in scholarship and public history. spent over 35 years in leadership in the national parks service before retiring last year, trained as an attorney, she helps president obama established 15 national monuments, including the reconstruction national monument. and billy kaiser ling -- keys mayor of beaufort. he also served in the south carolina state legislature.

without further a do, we will ask the first question for secretary babbitt. >> as secretary of the interior in the clinton administration, how did you become involved in an interested in the effort to create a national park site devoted to reconstruction, and why did it seem important to you? bbitt: it all began when i left law school. i spent a few years as a civil rights worker in the south. and during those days, in the spring of 1965 in selma and other places around the south. i always wondered we were in the middle of that. the historic antecedents of the -- revival of the civil rights on american agendas. after such a promising beginning, right after the civil war, it disappeared from the

agenda. some years later, i am the secretary of interior, thanks to bill clinton. we are in the monument business. i got acquainted with a remarkable academic named eric foner, who, in my judgment, more , broughtother person reconstruction back into its rightful place in american history. i got acquainted with him, and he said we ought to go down and i will show you around. he had identified beaufort, port royal, the penn center. this area in south carolina, the best kind of living example of all of this reconstruction history. to southd off

carolina. eric was my guide. i met all of the usual suspects. the irrepressible mayor billy and mike allen from the parks service, and got a nice view of what this was all about. there seems to be a unanimous agreement that this was the right place to memorialize reconstruction. that was really a terrific beginning, and it all went downhill from there. [laughter] byrd rule i can't -- sec. babbitt: i came back to washington, looked at the clock, in the last i was few months of my administration, and there was not a chance of getting this on the agenda in the last 60 days in the administration. .econstruction had no meaning most of the people i talked to thought reconstruction must refer to highways and bridges and ports. for the bushn

administration. i occasionally came back to check around and call of eric foner, got acquainted with the kate and greg, but there was not much going on. allenrks service, mike down in south carolina, his people were really jazzed by this. i have to tell you, if you talk with the park service in washington, no one had ever heard about all of these issues. so the years ticked by. and then comes the obama administration. really 10 years have gone by, and i thought well, we are back in business. this will be a slamdunk. well, it was not. the obama people in charge of these issues were on to other things, and it did not seem to have much urgency. they had never heard of eric

foner. he was still kind of buried in the past. and there were interesting objections. we have to have a specific place on by the federal government in order to legally ground the proclamation of a national monument. so i am calling billy up again, and saying billy, what is down there? what is owned by the federal government? not a popular idea in south carolina. [laughter] the second obstacle was the obama administration, rightfully, was saying before we use the antiquities act, we want legislation sponsored locally to provide a platform of public discussion. wonderut the atlas and

whose congressional district? bad news. the congressional district, the representative was mike sanford. [laughter] mr. babbitt: a nice enough guy, but he was not going to connect with this. this on somering real momentum, we are talking with all of these folks, and i have to think out-of-the-box of it. maybe the sponsor does not have to be a congressman from the district. who else is down there in south we are looking down, and we see the obvious. his name is james clymer. a wonderful, well-known congressman. leader,ted democratic and in my time, he had been a

champion of appropriations for historic preservation's, specifically for historic black colleges who helped us out. the clock is ticking. it is now 2016. we are past the end of clinton, bush one, bush two, obama on e. i called eric foner and h said, what is going on? he said bruce, you have to find a hail mary pass. you are running out of time again. i pick up the phone and that is when i decided to go see congressman clyburn. he lit up, and said yes, what can i do? i will do anything. he knows all of these characters me, there, and he said to you have to do one thing for me. go down to penn center and talk with dr. lawrence. spent a day down there,

looked around, and came back to congressman clyburn and said ok. and then it happened. that is the end of my story. [laughter] mr. babbitt: there is a lot more, a lot more. and then i met greg and take, but that is -- kate, but that is where i will leave you. >> we had asked eric to speak to this effort that build and ended up not coming to fruition, but was crucial for it happening. now we will cross our fingers that the magic of technology is on our side. [indiscernible] >> ok, you should never do that. sorry, guys.

>> i cannot remember anymore. >> [indiscernible] am happy to share my contribution to the reconstruction national monument beaufort, south carolina. i received a call from the secretary of the interior, bruce babbitt. he read my book on the reconstruction. i responded that i found this washington that a politician was reading a long, -- scholarlyme tome. but he pointed out that out of all of the national monument site, none was devoted to reconstruction. i flew down, had dinner with him, and over the next couple of months, prepared a report on possible venues for such a site.

obviously, reconstruction took place in numeral places, but i concluded that beaufort was the spot to commemorate that pivotal era. reconstruction, in a sense, began in beaufort and the surrounding area during the war, as numerous groups -- former slaves, northern teachers, groton goers -- cotton growers, tried to work out the new status of emancipated slaves. every key issue related to rate construction -- reconstruction -- battles over access to land, black political power, the rise of black education, and many others were played out in microcosm in the beaufort area. historians today's become a long reconstruction, and it lasted longer here than anywhere else. smalls, the intrepid x slave who became the areas political leader after the war,

was working up to 1913, when he was removed by president woodrow wilson. because of the union navy occupying the sea islands early in the civil war, and the white population prudently led rather than putting up a fight, little instruction took place. robert -- buildings like smalls house, plantations where land, struggle to acquire this all made the area the perfect spot to educate the public upon this vital yet misunderstood part of our history. in december 2000, secretary babbitt and i visited beaufort to discuss the idea and gather support for it. one thing i quickly learned was that if historians are going to get in processes like this, we need to learn to navigate the world of washington politics and assemble a broader way -- broad

array of backers. i spoke to historians such as walter edgar and thomas brown at the columbia campus of usc, and service,national parks the success of robert sutton, and local figures, especially hadformer oah official, who tried to establish the reconstruction partnership. accomplishcannot anything with allies like this. sometimesngress operate like a group of characters in the godfather. every member has his or her home territory, and will be tied the woe -- whoa be tied --

followed the member that left their place. -- president obama during one of his state of the union addresses, they had no interest or real knowledge of reconstruction. when the sons of confederate veterans pressured them to a close -- oppose the project, they agreed to do so. even james clyburn, a former history teacher and congressman from the charleston area, thesed to pursue without backing of the current member. represents theho beaufort area, led the support, and wyvern did use his white house connections to promote the project under president obama. when the bush administration took office in 2001, bruce babbitt's successor turned out nordin,yle

who, while hailing from colorado, had expressed the sympathy of the confederacy and -- later in the obama administrations, a new generation of historians and new leadership at the park service, including michael allen, succeeded in bringing it to fruition. of course, reconstruction is too big and too important a subject to be combined to a single site. everyone in this audience knows that without some familiarity of reconstruction, it is impossible to understand issues central to our society today -- who should be a citizen? what rights should they enjoy? who is responsible for enforcing those rights? who protect americans from terrorism? who should vote? interestedally more in erecting new sites like this

been debating the dismantling of monuments that already exist. the public presentation is decidedly one-sided. it needs to be brought into and diverse of five to make it truly diversified torse make it truly reflect our history. we historians have an obligation to try and disseminate the fruits of up-to-date scholarship in as many ways and as many venues as possible. let me close by saying i particularly regret by not -- not being able to greet secretary babbitt again. the photo that was shown of the two of us in late 2000 on our visit to beaufort. on that trip, secretary babbitt delivered very inspirational, short speeches about the importance of this project. i compliment of his eloquence -- compliment it is -- compliment

ed his eloquence and said, somewhat mischievously, that he should run for president. he said i tried, but i could not win with only the npr vote. [laughter] dr. foner: it is not too late, you are only three years older than bernie sanders. i say go for it, let's have a president who knows thing about american history. [laughter] [applause] i would like to make an announcement. from mollywill hear rob. --en your inbound involvement in the establishment of national monuments throughout your career, what did it take to get is not emit proclaimed by -- this monument proclaimed by president obama? >> as i am honored to be here, and i am a one of the -- one of

historian.a-be some of the village leaders are here today to get this thing proclaimed. there are legal and policy requirements that must be met before the president can exercise authority under the antiquities act, as secretary babbitt referred to, but the national monument also demonstrate how much more is usually needed to protect a place and tell its story. let's focus for a minute on the long policy. in 1906, congress passed the antiquities act, in which the congress delegated some of its power under the property clause to the president. in brief today, the president is authorized to proclaim a national monument, objects of historic or scientific interest located on federally owned land. 16 presidents, both republican and democrat, have used the act

to create over 150 national monuments. so what are the objects of historic or scientific interest in this national monument? the the proclamation as objects are described in the narrative. they include the break baptist brick baptist church, and the historic landmark district on st. helena island. cam saxton, where the first african-american regiment trained in 1862, and the emancipation proclamation was red and celebrated on january 1, 1863, located on navy lands in the town of port royal. and the old beaufort firehouse, close to many other historic beauforts within the national historic landmark district in the city of beaufort. recall that the antiquities act

says the object must be on land owned by the federal government. of the objects that i just ontioned, only camp saxton the navy grounds belonged to the federal government just before the national monument was claimed. through the remarkable generosity of several, including penn center, the beaufort baptist and brick baptist churches, and the kaiser lang -- keyserling family, donations of land already and made to the federal government. all of these transactions has to be completed before the president could act. beyond meeting the legal requirements of the antiquities act as, the administration wanted to know if there was public support for a national monument. thanks to the efforts of many, we were inundated with letters of support from public and private individuals and

organizations, including influential historians with almost no dissents. representatives clyburn and mark sanford introduced the bill to establish a reconstruction era unit in may of 2016. local and national newspapers carried compelling editorials by historians and others. on december 14, 2016, the new byk times a wonderful op-ed none other than kate and greg and eric foner. all of this effort culminated in a public meeting hosted by representative clyburn on december 15, 2016, at the brick baptist church. here is how i described it. approximately 200 people packed the historic church, and over 40 speakers, representing a broad and diverse spectrum of the local community, expressed strong support. those in attendance says this is the story that must be told now,

and offered their assistance in that effort. tick-tock,-- tick-tock. could we get everything done? things had to be done. interagency review was required, as well as very thorough review by officials up to and including the white house. the reconstruction era national monument was the last national monument created by president obama. it was proclaimed on january 12, 2017, and published in the federal register on january 19. that is where you can find any of these proclamations. within the administration, we had not been sure we could complete all the work. but so many put heart, soul, and that itto this effort happened. president obama, secretary sally tool, and the park service director john jarvis wanted to

tell a fuller story of america. and yes, the national park service, really wanted to tell this story. michael allen has been working on this most of his career. the parks service contracted with greg and kate to work on the national park service handbook on reconstruction, and the national historic landmark theme study. focusing on reconstruction was the necessary next step to the sesquicentennial remembrance of the civil war. luckily, the basis of this action had been laid by ,ecretary babbitt, eric foner and others. luckily, god created billy keyserling, including wonderful leaders at the church, the town of port royal. the national parks service was able to work out an arrangement with the department of the navy to include camp sachsen, which is now part of the naval support facility beaufort.

luckily, jim clyburn worked long and hard from congress, and his colleague mark sanford joined the effort in that proposed bill. thanks to everyone. [applause] >> last but not least, mayor keyserling. everyone has talked about the centrality of local support, for all of the higher-level work, the upper level administrative work and historical work that happened without support on the ground, it could not have happened. what did that look like? what did it take to bring together a local effort? what lessons do you think you and other people in beaufort learned from the efforts that , and what can historians learn from your experience of trying to pull together that local support? mayor keyserling: i think the

first lesson -- i say this in --is that sometimes you cannot rely on high-level government officials and historians, because when they started this in 2008, they did not really understand that they had a big pressure cooker in terms of the local politics. in that pressure cooker, you do not take the top off. they entrusted congressman wilson to carry the ball in the house. off, and the top everybody got burned. the put the top act on -- back on, and we waited, as the secretary has alluded. but 20 years -- 17 years at the time -- a lot changed in this country. the reality is the local politics was not so much our problem as a question about whether or not we could get something going and fast enough.

the biggest obstacle was time. obstacled part of that was, as you heard molly talk, with the antiquities -- was the antiquities process. we had to go to people and say, would you donate a building today, and we are hoping the president will sign it operation within the next week to use that building -- a proclamation within the next week to use that building? and the parks system with an awkward position, because under antiquities, they had to be quiet advocates. they could be facilitators, but they could not be out front. when you go to someone to give a building or an easement, or take a restrictive covenant out of a deed, everyone had to act in good faith from the parks service, which was really not allowed to say where we were going. they had to be very cautious,

because they are not allowed to solicit. someone has to offer. the antiquities act was difficult. but public support -- when i set out on this journey, which was really before secretary babbitt and jim clyburn called me -- i think he is in the room, but they introduced me to craig, who i think is in the room, worked for jim clyburn. he was fabulous at being the blue and washington -- in washington that held us together, and is holding us together now, because we have bigger and better ideas, so we will be calling on you. [laughter] mayor keyserling: and then there is a group called the concentration land -- conservation land spotter foundation, which was terry babbitt -- secretary babbitt -- she was very involved in that. -- he was very involved in that. we did not understand the particular these -- peculiarities of the antiquities

act, but they did and they could guide us. hired someone, a grant us, and i think they happen to be here and we'll be doing a panel tomorrow on where we are going next. she said let's build a foundation. we got a national endowment from the a row, but between those, -- the arts two years in a row, but between those, something happened. the community on the street, people were staying in people's houses, eating in people's restaurants, and we created a buzz. i literally got on the phone with michael allen -- he could not ask people to do things, but he could tell me the right people to ask. we got 167 historians from all over this country, who wrote letters of support. where to the point

secretary jules, deputy chief of staff, called me and said billy, enough with the letters. if i have to keep reading the letters, we will never get your work done. but we churned it. it was african americans, we even went to some of the confederate groups, heritage groups, and said this is a new world. there is a chapter in our history that has never been written, and it deserves a chance. i think the most telling moment, because two or three days after the declaration of the monument, i got a call from sally jewell and from molly, and they said -- as was fair to say this? [laughter] they both saidg: we never thought you could get this done. the amount of work, on top of

the work for the two other that the parks service was doing in a region that had never got a monument before, there was a huge learning curve for everybody. sure --id it out of drive, it is passion. the telling moment -- molly was there -- was when we had the public hearing. the public hearing is very important. the public is supposed to drive the antiquities process. brick church, on st. helena island across from penn center, to most people me, the churchpt was overflowing. to a lot of surprise, we had everything from school children old people, young people, retired people, white people, black people, every kind of person you could imagine. the passion that emanated into that church i think shocked the

director, that we were able to ,rystallize this sense of hope and it really was a sense of hope. someone from the parks service in atlanta said you know, this is the first public hearing where we did not have people coming and talking about we need jobs or economic development. the central message from the 5060 -- 50, 60, to the several hundred that spoke, was that it is time to hear the real story. it is time for the truth. that is all we want. when the elderly african-american woman stood up with a piece of wrinkled paper, covered in cellophane, she said see this? this is the deed to my great-grandfather's property. , even read a history book today, you will read that my a slave, when he was freed, was given 40 acres and a mule.

he paid a dollars and $.49 for it. nothing was given -- $8.49 for it. nothing was given to him. that story got a false start. colleagues on the council, caucasian, 32-year-old businessman -- he came, and said you know, my great, great grandfather was in the artillery in the confederate army, and we have a picture of him in our living room. i have always thought of him as a hero, but you know, i still think of him as a hero, but he was on the wrong side. and it is time that the truth be told. and over and over and over -- not one person wrote a letter to the editor, wrote a letter to to the eventcame

and spoke against this project. it was clearly one of the most heartwarming experiences of my life, to know that there is that ,uch love and that much honesty and that much integrity in a small little southern town that has this huge history, so much of which has either been missed or not told at all. is that what you wanted? >> that was awesome, thank you. [applause] mayor keyserling: obviously, everybody can tell i do not care about this. [laughter] >> let me throw a question to all three of you. -- what is next? if we want to build on this, and this is going to be a stepping stone not just to the creation of one institution, which is amazing, but to really be a

stepping stone to transforming how the public understands reconstruction, what is next? >> who wants to go first? >> billy? mayor keyserling: i am on the ground, if you like. us outside of this has been working on getting the story told. we have gotten some grants, we historians,umber of our leader of whom is dr. foner, grege listed -- enlisted kate to work with us because we want to tell the modern story. we want to donate whatever we get to the parks service and incorporated into the development there. there is a further dream out there, that four sites out of -- how many did you all visit? how many are there all across the country? -- there are many

more stories there. i will tell you a quick one. that is on the mayor of charleston called me on monday, and he said billy, i went to the 140th emancipation day parade in --rleston, because in action the emancipation proclamation was right on the first. -- read on the first. it?aid do you know who read i think i played him in reenactments, but i cannot member his name. i looked it up and i told him, and he said do you know who he was? i said no. he said, he was a slave owner and south carolina who decided that he was going to become an abolitionist. he did not think what he was doing was right, so he sold his slaves to his brother-in-law and moved to ohio. he got to ohio and said wait a

minute, i am supposed to be helping these people get free. i am an abolitionist. hewitt back to south carolina, purchased his slaves back -- he went back to south carolina, to hised his slaves back brother-in-law, paid a premium for all of them, and took them to ohio and freed them. and then he came back to south carolina, where he worked aggressively. he was a baptist minister, and down to the line -- a white baptist minister -- and down to the line, we have the baptist church of beaufort, which owned four churches occupied by african-americans. they had transformed all that one of them in the 1970's. and then they transferred it to the brick baptist church. when molly and the lawyers were doing their research, just to get the facade easement at that time, they realized there was a

cloud on the title or an exception in the deed that said should it no longer serve as a house of worship, it would have to be given back to the church. well, you cannot put an easement on a property that has that condition. 2016, 5:001, p.m., the baptist church of beaufort voted unanimously to give up any rights they had to allow this to happen. so there are so many stories to be told that are way outside the of workcredible amount has been done, and it has not been packaged and nobody knew what to expect. i hate to keep going, but at brick baptist church, a doctrine of divinity,

grew up in charleston, several miles away. it was not until about 10 or 15 years ago, when he moved to become the pastor at brick baptist church, that he even knew the penn center existed, or that brick church -- here is a learned guy, a man of god who is generally on the right side, lives 70 miles away and did not know it. this is a very exciting time for those who live in beaufort. i think the challenge going forward, especially for historians, is how we spread this message itionally, and integrate into the national american story , so that we are not just looking at another really compelling national monument.

powerat monument has the to kind of backlight and inform our national experience. so how do we do that? i think i would start by suggesting to historians and so how do we do that? politicians that we really need to broaden our narrative of the civil war, because that is an event which is really, deeply embedded in our national history. it tends to be kind of a war story rather than a story of conflict resolution and transformation. of all of these very significant monuments all over the country, to that episode from many, many perspectives, they are war monuments. is not need to do

rewrite the story, but expanded. of thatt in the context particular slice of american history, which we are already familiar with. it needs expansion. dr. masur: i would just add to ng,t, because, mayor keyserli we are trying to look at the stories that beaufort can tell, advanced communications in storytelling, and secretary babbitt, who is talking about making this story national. in the proclamation, we called reconstruction, as the historians had instructed us, the second founding. and we related to the three very important amendments to the constitution, and how that changed, really, our foundation and was a potential for opening .p a brand-new freedom

that is a story that needs to be told in lots of places and in lots of ways, and i guess that i challenge everyone here to think of how that story can be told, .here it can be told the national, which was my career, and tell stories through places. that is one way to tell a story. it can be a very compelling way to tell a story. i have been reassured that the national historic landmark theme study on reconstruction is now out, and that is typically how we look at where else can the story be told with places? what else can be done? and i very much believe in the park service and the role in telling american stories, so i love that, but more in this day ever, people need

to know this history. you can all think of where this story needs to be told. dr. masur: that is a perfect to segue into the question we want to ask the panel before we segue into audience questions. i know you want to ask questions and engage, and i want us to have plenty of time to do that. because there are probably so many historians in the room right now who may be have not been involved in public history, per se, or work mainly in universities as professors were graduate students -- for graduate students or historians and other kind of places, specifically, in your his. in the work you have done, how do historians enter a conversation like this? if you would like to pick up what you were saying, molly, and go the next step, what would you invite the people who are interested in this room to do? mayor keyserling: i would say, get greg and kate, and

their advice about writing editorials for the new york times. example of moving out into public advocacy with the tools that you have at your command. >> connections need to be made -- i can speak for the parks service -- connections need to be made between leaders and the parks service, historians in the parks service, and those outside. the parks service has a glorious history of historians, but there have been some close to it in more recent decades. stilloping that it is attracting historians, and i encourage you to check that out if that is of interest to you. i know that i work with some wonderful people, but it is not as strong a discipline as it once was for the parks service.

supportakes the right from higher levels to make it so. nevertheless, i will tell you i immediately turn to luanne jones in the parks service, who was wonderful in helping with this, and other historians -- we have had robert sutton, and others who have been wonderful supporters of these efforts. serviceting the parks to your symposium, creating an interest -- as i said, i am a wanna-be historian. so many people in the parks service love what they do and telling the story of america, both the history and natural resources. whatever connections you can make with people, they can generate interest.

that is what i had to add. see, keyserling: i just every time i read or hear another story about reconstruction, i see it's relevance -- its relevance to problems we are dealing with today. if we can somehow find a way to link them -- for example, i have young, african-american men, probably caucasians as well, with their pants falling off and no role models, who have grown up thinking they were victims, who do not know that their great, great-grandfather was a survivor. this was an incredibly talented -- these freed people were incredibly talented. robert smalls is probably one of the finest and most affected -- effective politicians there ever was. but there are so many in terms

of getting these kids to have some hope and to see that they come from stock that was extremely successful. not many people have said this, but during the reconstruction period, where you had former slaves as entrepreneurs and white entrepreneurs, and everyone was working together, that was the most financially prosperous my little town has ever been. and that is why we had the fusion party at the end that said we do not want to go backwards. we do not like this jim crow thing, and they held out for or five years -- four or five years. so my answer is find a problem that is relevant today, see what you learn, and i that you can tie together things that will help us with what we are going through. things are not very nice right now. >> thank you so much.

we would like to invite questions from the audience. we have been asked by c-span, but if you could ask a question that the microphone in the center aisle. if people want to come forward, for you all to be able to ask questions of our panel. lets get this started, raise your hand while somebody comes up. i think he is presidential material. [laughter] >> true leadership. >> [indiscernible] thinking about how reconstruction fits in the national story, how can we make -- what can we do [indiscernible]

>> i think when we got involved with the national parks service, we were curious about this question. we convened a group of imminent to talk about the national parks service, and people there said are you going to be willing to tell a story about the thousands of murders, , topolitical violence, and their credit, over and over, mike allen on the ground, the southeastern superintendent, and now the chief historian bob sutton,.

he said we have to do it that way. we have to tell it as a story of second revolution. we have to tell it as a story that involves both the extraordinary possibilities that it unleashes, and also the extraordinary violence it took to put it back. it does not mean there are not tensions, challenges, or limitations, and i'm super interested in hearing other , but i waske on that very optimistic that from the beginning, those people came in really primed to do it. i do not think everyone in the national parks service was quite as primed as they were, and i think they sometimes had to be stubborn to defend these points, but that was my experience in those early times. the parks service people we worked with took great pride in the tradition of the parks service fallowing -- valuing the highest level of scholarship, and there were plenty of precedents for the park service -- parks service

hiring academics write theme studies like the one we wrote. they are people that you would think they would be calling on, or people who have done this work for the national parks service. example, we wrote this theme study as sort of an overview of reconstruction, and the meeting greg talked about, we decided there would be six within thex themes theme study, and one of those was political violence. we drew heavily on the work of foner, andn, eric others. it is in there in an unedited way, the way we would have written it. i think that answers the specific question you were getting at, about things that get tapered over. it remains to be seen how that gets substantiated within the monument itself, and there is an ongoing process that will continue about developing the actual site and what kind of

interpretation happened there. one model i think is interesting that i so wish michael allen were here -- he talks about a lot of the public history work involvesas done, it the idea that interpreting history to the public is a process, and part of what you are doing is engaging in a dialogue. you might be delivering information people find surprising more upsetting, but the goal is not to necessarily bomb them with it but engages in a conversation about what they are learning and what it means to know that. so in dealing with difficult issues -- or i would hope -- the monument itself will take that as part of the model, that this is some of the very difficult, most difficult aspects of american history, and many people cannot expect or be it,cted to easily accept particularly if what they have always heard in the past is quite different from what they are now hearing.

mr. babbitt: i think that there is a gradual opening going on here that is really important. the member, president -- remember, president obama, in addition to declaring the reconstruction national monument, then went on to issue monument proclamations for the freedom writers in the south and for some a -- selma, which i think is significant. orre was not any significant controversial backlash to that. we are starting to see it opening up in the film industry. it was a very powerful facet of american history, and we are starting to see a few put trails -- portrayals of this beginning to emerge. it will be a continuing process

that is by no means finished. >> in the obama administration, the obama administration was very geared to telling this fuller story of america, and telling it honestly and educating. as secretary babbitt mentioned, there was the birmingham and freedom writers monuments also created. stonewall was also created in new york, sagerharriet tubman wl monument. in ohio.lo soldiers then there was -- the people i worked with in the park service, and its leaders, during the obama administration were very, very excited about this and wanted to have the highest scholarship. there are times in the parks