and school staff to prevent shooting. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" live friday morning at 7:00 eastern. join the discussion. next, a conversation about benjamin franklin's faith. baylor university history professor thomas kidd argued franklin's skepticism to writings undermined his confidence in christian. this event was part of a symposium hosted by the museum of the bible in washington, d.c. >> good morning, everyone, and welcome to museum of the bible. i'm kay penniger and i'm the director of museum education. we're delighted you join us today for our february program speakers. our program consists of three sessions followed by a

roundtable discussion later on this afternoon. following the roundtable discussion, we'll have a book signing with our speakers. at museum of the bible, our mission is to engage people with the bible. the bible has made a powerful impact on world history and cultures. it has influenced nations, laws and political structures. it's guided debates, shaped political -- shaped pivotal events and inspired views of prominent individuals, both past and present. the bible is hidden in plain sight. in everyday life from common expressions that we all use to the music, the arts and literature. and today we'll explore a theme that expands on how the american colonies as they moved toward revolution and the founding of our nation, our founders turned to the bible as a source of inspiration and justification for their political actions. we have three prominent scholars with us today, dr. thomas kidd, dr. daniel dreisbeck and dr.

james byrd who will talk with us about how the bible influenced the generation. the aenigma of benjamin franklin's faith with thomas kidd. benjamin franklin tells us in his autobiography he became a diest as a young man. franklin proposed that delegates open sessions with prayer. in this session, thomas kidd will explore the enigma of franklin's faith and the tension between his well-known skepticism and the enduring influence of his puritan upbringing on his familiarity with the boibl. thomas kidd is a distinguished professor of history at baylor university. he's the author of "benjamin franklin: the religious life of a founding father" please join me in welcoming dr. kidd. [ applause ]

>> well, thank you to kay and thank you to the museum of the bible for hosting this wonderful event. it's a pleasure to be here at the museum. i hope to consult with some of the section on bible in america. it's just a wonderful thing to actually be here and see this lovely facility. so thank you for having us and thank you to those of you who are joining us online or on tv. it's great to be here. i do want to talk to you today about the enigma of benjamin franklin's faith, and to open with a story of something that happened at the constitutional convention. in 1787 at the constitutional convention, time dragged as delegates bickered about representation in congress. virginia's james madison insisted that states with more people should possess more power. the small states knew that under the articles of confederation,

america's existing national government, all states had equal authority regardless of population. so why should the small states give up that power under a new constitution? the convention might have failed at this point. it really could have. if it had, the country would have continued to struggle under the inefficient and some said feckless articles government or the new american nation might have disintegrated. at this critical moment, ben franklin took the floor. calling for unity, he asked delegates to open sessions with prayer. as they were, quote, groping, as it were, in the dark to find political truth, he queried, how has it happened that we have not hither to once thought of humbly applying to the father of lights to illuminate our

understandings? if they continue to ignore god, he said, our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall become a reproach down to future ages. this man who called himself a diest now insisted that delegates should ask good for wisdom. this was strange. because classic diests did not believe that god interfered in human affairs. even more strange, he was one of the few delegates who thought that opening with prayer was a good idea. his motion was tabled. so what kind of diest was this man calling on americans to humble themselves before god? franklin's work at the constitutional convention was the culmination of his spectacular career. he and george washington, who

was 26 years his junior, were not the architects of the constitution. that role fell to james madison and alexander hamilton and others. but franklin and washington were the two most famous americans in 1787 and delegates looked on franklin with respect and awe. there seemed little doubt that washington, the imposing virginia general, would become president of the convention. if there was any competitor for chair, it was the venerable franklin. the very heavens obey him, one georgia delegate noted. but franklin had planned to nominate washington as chair himself if a storm had not kept him home for the opening day of the meeting. the son of boston puritans had come a long way to get to that philadelphia meeting hall. in late spring of 1787, he exchanged letters with his beloved sister jane who was an

evangelical christian and the sibling who maintained the longest correspondence with and the deepened influence on franklin. they reminisced about their humble beginnings as the children of a candle maker. she had remained a person of humble means and relative anonymity while her brother's fame skyrocketed. ben told her that the course of his life filled him with wonder and fills me with humble thankfulness to that deviivine being who has graciously conducted my steps and prospered me in this strange land to a degree that i could not have rationally expected and can by no means conceive myself to have merited. i beg the continuance of his favor. chronic sickness made it difficult for franklin to stand and speak at the convention, but he did offer occasional

comments, seeking to steer the delegates toward a successful conclusion. but early on, he also made a substantive speech arguing against paying a salary to the president or to other members of the executive branch. he based this argument on his dim view of human nature and of politicians' temptations to personal aggrandizement. quote, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men, he declared. these are ambition and ave list, the love of power and the love of money. placed before the eyes of such men, a post of honors that at the same time shall be a place of profit and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. such corruption had ruined british politics and he wished to uncouple america's government from the profit motive.

citing exodus 1821, franklin reminded delegates that the best rulers were men hating c -- own the most bold and violent men would want to enter. less delegates dismiss his pay proposal as utopian. he cited examples of offices in which people served for little or no money. the arbiters of quaker meetings heard disputes that would have otherwise gone to secular courts. these duties were tedious yet quaker leaders performed them for no compensation. he also pointed to the virtuous washington, who took no salary as the general of the continental army. though, to be fair he did submit expenses. the convention declined to adopt franklin's proposal, but franklin was participating in a

bigger conversation that ran all through the constitutional debates. what kind of government could best account for the dangers inherent in human nature? although americans disagreed on the answer, they did not dispute the premise. men were not angels, as madison had written in federalist 51. they could not be trusted with unchecked power. franklin joined a more controversial debate at the convention with his proposal for prayer on june 28th, 1787. he had lived a long time, he reminded delegates, and he had become ever more certain that god oversaw human affairs. franklin was convinced that providence has shepparded americans through crisis. it was foolishness not to call on god again. he reminded them of the early days of the war when the patriots prayed, off in that

same room, for god's help. at its best, faith inculcated public spiritedness and it suffocated selfishness. good had led them to the point where they could now frame the best possible government. and have we now forgotten that powerful friend, he asked. citing psalm 127, they labor in vain that build it. furthermore, he declared, i firmly believe this. i believe without he his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of babble. prideful strife would confound their work, he said, and turn their proceedings into a farce. this was the most remarkable

religious episode of ben franklin's life. it was stunning. and not just because of the stage on which he was proposing prayer. franklin, as i suggested before, was nearly alone among the delegates in wishing to bring prayer into the convention's proceedings. connecticut's roger sherman, one of the most devout christians in attendance, seconded franklin's motion and virginia's edwin randolph proposed they hire a pastor to preach on independence day less than a week later. that minister could then open subsequent meetings with prayer. beyond these three men, though, delegates seemed uninterested in arranging for prayers. some someone pointed out that they had not budgeted funds for a chaplain. alexander hamilton worried that calling in a pastor might signal that the convention was becoming desperate. he also reportedly, reportedly questioned the propriety of

calling in foreign aid. so the motion fizzled. and franklin was exasperated. jotting a note at the bottom of his prayer speech that, quote, the convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary. well, franklin and the convention moved on. perhaps his prayer speech did remind delegates of the need for compromise. even if it prompted no formal recourse to god. in an address two days after proposing prayer, franklin explained the root of the tension between the large and the small states. if representation was proportioned according to population, quote, the small states contend their liberties will be in danger. if inequality of votes is to be put in its place, the large states say their money is in danger. both sides were going to have to

give up some demands to ensure a successful outcome. so draw on earlier discussions regarding a two-house legislature, franklin suggested that the convention create a house of representatives with proportional representation and a senate with equal representation between the states. and this became the great compromise, arguably the key settlement of the whole convention. in his final speech before the convention, franklin warned against dogmatism which might derail the constitution. he saw this species of moralistic perfectionism both in religion and in politics. most men, indeed, as well as most sects and religion, think themselves in possession of all truth and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. delegates should be willing to

support the constitution, he said, even if they did not regard it as perfect. no better frame of government would emerge from additional meetings. franklin was, quote, not sure that it was not the best that they could do as it currently stood. the framers' enemies were longing to they're that their councils had been confounded, quote, like those to the builders of babble. he returns repeated to the story of the building of babble from genesis. the convention needed to present a unified front as the constitution went out for ratification. multiple forms of government could work well when administered by virtuous people anyway. according to an often repeated story. when someone asked franklin after the convention whether they had created a monarchy or a republic, he replied, a republic, if you can keep it.

so, to return to our central question of franklin and faith, who was this franklin of philadelphia? and what did he believe? in our mind's eye, the man seems ingenuous, mischievous -- he's journalistic, scientific and political achievements are clear but what of ben franklin's religion? was franklin defined by his youthful embrace of deism? his longtime friendship with george whitfield. his work with thomas jefferson on the declaration of independence. of its creator and nature's god. or his insistence on prayer at the convention.

when you add franklin's propensity for joking about serious matters, he becomes even more difficult to pin down. regarding franklin's chameleon-like religion, john adams once remarked, quote, the catholics thought him almost a catholic. the church of england claimed him as one of them. the presbyterians thought him half a presbyterian and the friends believed him a wet quaker, which basically means a quake who are is not so well-behaved. the key i think to understanding franklin's ambivalent faith is the create between the skepticism of his adult life and the indelible imprint of his childhood puritanism. the intense piety and faith of his parents acted as a tether. restraining franklin's skepticism. as a teenager, it's true he

abandoned his parents' puritan beliefs, but that same traditional faith kept him from getting too far away. he would stretch his moral indoctrinal tether to the breaking point. by the end of a trip he made to london. when he returned to philadelphia in 1776, he resolved to kmorm closely to his parents' ethical cold and steered away from extreme diesm. could he create a christianity centered on virtue rather than tradition traditional doctrine and avoid alienating his parents at the same time? more importantly, could he convince the evangelical figures in his life, most importantly his sister jane and the

revivalist george whitfield that all was well with his soul? he would have more success in time convincing his sister than convincing george whitfield. when he ran away from boston as a teenager, when he ran away -- from boston to philadelphia, he also ran away from boston's calvinism. but many factors, his puritan tether, the pressure of relationships with christian friends and family, disappointments with his own integrity, repeated illnesses and the growing weight of political responsibility all kept him from going too deep into the dark woods of radical skepticism. franklin explored a number of religious opinions. even at the end of his life as we will see, he remained noncommittal about all but a few points of belief.

this elusiveness has made franklin susceptible to many religious interpretations. some devout christians, beginning with the celebrated 19th century biographer parson mason weims have found ways to mold franklin into a faithful believer. weims opined that, quote, franklin's extraordinary be nerve lens in useful life were imbibed even unconsciously from the gospel. there is something to this notion of christianity's unconscious effect on franklin, but weims had to employ indirection here because of franklin's repeated insistence that he doubted key points of christian doctrine. other christian writers could not overlook those skeptical statements. the english baptist minister john foster wrote in 1818 that love of the useful was the

cornerstone of franklin's thought and that franklin, quote, substantially rejected christianity. one of the most influential interpretations of franklin's religion appeared in the classic study the prodistant ethic. he was a near perfect example of ho of-fostered modern capitalism. franklin's "the way to wealth" which distilled his best thoughts on frugality and industry. and simultaneously offers the advantage of being detached from all direct connection to religious belief.

for vaber, franklin's virtues were no longer a matter of just obeying god. virtue was useful and profitable. franklin admonished by his strict calvinist father about diligence in one's calling presented money make and success as products of competence and proficiency in a vocation. vaber's franklin grew up in an intense calvinist setting but redirected that zeal towards a virtuous labor, printing. franklin touted ethical responsibility as an adult, industriousness and benevolence even as he rejected christian orthodoxy. many have taken franklin at his

word for describing him as a deist. he calls himself a deist in his auto biography. that's a good place to start. others have called him things from a, quote, stone-cold atheist, which is ridiculous, he's not an atheist. believed in the active god of the israelites, the prophets and the apostles. between atheism and christian devotion. but other than indicating skepticism about traditional christian doctrine, deism could mean many things in 18th century europe and america. it can mean many things. the police chiefs of different deists didn't always sync up. some said that they believed in the bible as originally written. other deists doubted the bible's reliability. sompt deists believed that good

remained in life on earth. others saw god, yes, as the cosmic watch maker, winding up the world and letting it go on its own and going off somewhere else. deism meant different things to franklin over the course of his long life, too, and he didn't always explain those variant meanings. i'm not opposed to calling franklin a deist and i do so in my book, but deist doesn't quite capture the trajectory of franklin's beliefs. a gratefully draw from aspects of vaber's analysis on franklin's religion in my analysis of him, but adding to the themes of franklin's skepticism and ambivalence, my book shows how much franklin's personal experiences shaped his religious beliefs. his personal experiences shaped his religious beliefs.

like abraham lincoln, i think there is an important comparison to be made here to lincoln. franklin's early exposure to skeptical writings undermined his confidence in christianity. but books alone could not erase franklin's childhood immersing in puritan piety. his ongoing relationships with evangelical christians made it difficult for him to jettison the vocabulary and precepts of traditional faith altogether. although his view of providence vacillated, the weight of the american revolution fostered a renewed belief that history had a divine purpose. franklin and lincoln, both self-educated sons of calvinist parents, both of whom had much of the bible committed to memory, gravitated toward a

revitalized sense of god's role over history as war and constitutional crises racked america in the 1770s for franklin, in the 1860s for lincoln. neither man's beliefs could escape the influence of their daily relationships and stressful experiences. it is difficult to overstate just how deep an imprint the bible itself made on franklin's or on lincoln's mind or on his ways of speaking and writing. you all know that even many devout christians today are basically unfamiliar with large sections of the bible, especially in the old testament

and don't know much about current theological debates. franklin knew the bible backward and forward. it framed the way that he spoke and he thought. biblical phrases that he had learned going to church over and over long two-hour sermons sometimes and puritan churches, multiple times a week. so biblical phrases are everywhere in his vast body of writings. so even as he embraced religious doubts, the king james bible colored his ideas about morality, human nature and the purpose of life. it served as his most common source of simplies and anecdotes. it's everywhere. he even enjoyed preying on friends' ignorance of scripture in order to play jokes on them. he would show them a passage and

say, oh, don't you remember this from the book of genesis. oh, right. he would laugh at them because he knew it wasn't in the book of genesis. he got really upset when one of these things got published because then people knew about the joke. he couldn't play the joke anymore. franklin once explained the bible-saturated environment in a letter to the reverend samuel cooper of boston. franklin was arranging for the publication of one of cooper's sermons in europe but franklin needed to an tate the sermon with biblical references. this is what he said. quote, it was not necessary in new england, where everybody reads the bible and is acquainted with scripture phrases, that you should note the text from which you took them, he told cooper, but i have observed in england as well as in france that verses and expressions taken from the sacred writings and not known to be such, in other words, you

don't give the chapter and verse, appear very strange and awkward to some readers. and i shall therefore in my addition take the liberty of marking the quoted texts in the margin. now, franklin did not need cooper to insert the bible references because franklin knew them by heart. and as a child of the puritans, franklin immediately recognized bible phrases when he read them. even from obscurer sections of the text. so the shadow of scripture loomed over his long life. franklin then was a pioneer i think of a distinctly kind of american -- distinct kind of american religion. i'm tempted to call it an early form of what robert bella called sheilaism, which was the

individualist religion described in the book "habits of the heart: 1985s. if you haven't heard of this, the individual conscience is the standard for religious truth, not any external authority. but i think that franklin's protege tom payne might be a better choice as a founder of sheilaism with payne's declaration in his book "the age of reason" 1794, quote, my own mind is my own church. so i think franklin was too tethered to external christian ethics and institutions to be a forerunner of what bella called sheilaism. instead, franklin was a pioneer of a kind of related faith, and that is what i call doctrineless moralized christianity. some may debate whether this is actually christianity at all, but you all can think about this for yourself. franklin was an experimenter at

heart and he tinkered with a novel form of christianity, one where virtually all beliefs became nonessential. nonessential. so the puritans of his childhood focused too much on doctrine, he thought, and he we'ried of philadelphia presbyterians' zeal and the presbyterians' lack of interest as he perceived it in the mandates of love and charity. for franklin, christianity remained a preeminent resource for virtual out but -- virtue but he had attachment to christian as a source of salvation. in franklin's estimation, we cannot know for certain whether doctrines such as god's trinitarian nature are true, but

franklin said christians and the -- called to be nerve lens in service. it's not only few tile but it undermines the mandate of virtue, but we know that god calls us all to do good. now, if you hadn't noticed, doctrineless christianity and religion is utterly pervasive in america today. we see it most commonly in major media foilings of self-help, spirituality and success. such as oprah winfrey. in a different vein, houston megachurch pastor joel osteen. although they differ on specifics and some more more christian, some are less christian, the common message of these authors and their countless followers, and i do mean countless followers is that

a life of love, service and significance is the best life of all. god will help you live that kind of life, but your faith should be empowering and tolerant rather than fractious and nitpicking. that's what they say. sociologist at notre dame says these characteristically american beliefs amounts to what he calls moralistic therapeutic deism. many of its most prominent exponents such as joel osteen live out their faith in particular congregations and traditions. even oprah winfrey has testified that, quote, i am a christian, that is my faith. however, she says, i'm not asking you to be a christian. if you want to be one, i can show you how, but it is not required. doctrineless christians believe that people may need to believe in doctrines or personal

understanding of god can help us. we may need particular beliefs to enable our best life now, joel osteen's phrase. but ultimately the focus of doctrineless christianity is a life of good works, resiliency and generosity now. faith helps us to embody discipline, denerve lebe nerve success in this live. that's what good wants for us. well, today it's easy to dismiss this sort of pot faith because it's so often peddled by wealthy media superstars, but it is i think america's most common code of spirituality. and for franklin when you go back to the 18th century, doctrineless moralized christianity was serious intellectual business. it was very serious. born out of contemporary religious debates and

dissatisfaction with his family's puritanism, like many skeptics in the 18th century, franklin was weary of 300 years of fighting over the legacy of the ref reformation. franklin grew up in a world of intractable conflict between catholics and protestants. but also within and between protestant denominations themselves. what good was christianity, he wondered, if it precipitated pettiness, persecution and violence. unlike some self-help celebrities today, franklin and his cohort of european and american deists reckoned in promoting a ethics-focused christianity, they were redeeming christianity itself. how successful that redemptive effort was, you all are going to

have to decide for yourselves. could you really have a nonexclusive doctrinely minimal morality-centered christianity? or did the effort fatally compromise christianity itself? franklin, thomas jefferson and many of their friends in america, britain and france wanted to give it a try. 13 years after franklin's death, jefferson wrote that he considered himself, quote, a christian in the only sense jesus wished anyone to be. he admired jesus', quote, moral doctrines as more pure and perfect than any other philosophers, jefferson said, but to jefferson, jesus' excellence was only human. jesus never claimed to be anything else, jefferson said. christians, including the authors of the new testament books, impose the claims of divinity on jesus after he had

gone to his grave and not risen again, jefferson concluded. well, franklin didn't go as far as jefferson. franklin preferred not to dog dogmatise one way or the other on matters of jesus' divinity. in a classic tension that still marks american religion right now, franklin's devout parents, his sister jane and the reverend george whitfield all found doctrineless christianity to be dangerous. yes, they agreed that morality was essential, and, yes, it was better not to fight over minor theological issues, but true belief in jesus was necessary for salvation. to the puritans and evangelicals, jesus was fully god and fully man. doubting that truth put your soul in jeopardy. jesus had made the way for

sinners to be saved through his atoning death and his miraculous resurrection. it wasn't enough to just emulate jesus' life, as important as that was. more than a moral teacher, jesus was lord and savior. so honoring christ required belief in doctrinal truth. franklin wasn't sure about that. perhaps the puritans and presbyterians of his youth had gotten it wrong. perhaps he was the one who was getting back to jesus' original teachings. but he was sure that doing good was the grand point. for most of his life, franklin had traditional christian inquirers, especially family and friends who asked him about the state of his beliefs. and the state of his soul.

as i've said, among the most consistent of those inquirers were her sister jane and george whitfield. in the last few weeks of franklin's life, however, one more inquirer came on the stage. franklin had known yale college president ezra styles ever since yale granted franklin an honorary master's degree in 1753, styles a congregationalist minister and a broad-minded calvinist realized that franklin was near death. quote, you have merited and received all the honors of the republic of letters and are going to a world where all sublinary glories will be lost in immortality, styles wrote to him. styles paused, would it be impertinent of him to ask about franklin's belief in christ?

as much as i know of dr. franklin, styles confessed, i have not an idea of his religious sentiments. i wish to know the opinion of my venerable friend concerning jesus of nazareth. stiles adored franklin, quote, happy immortality, which i believe jesus alone has purchased for the virtuous and truly good of every religious denomination. franklin respected styles and so five weeks before his death, five weeks before his death, he penned a response. it's absolutely precious that we have this. and he asked styles to keep it confidential. apparently he didn't since we're talking about it here. you desire to know something of my religion. it is the first time i have been

questioned upon it, franklin wrote, which is just simply not true. i don't know why he sid that because his parents, jane, george whitfield and others had been asking him about it all his life. anyway, he said, but i do not take your curiosity amiss and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it, he wrote. here is my creed. i believe in one god. creator of the universe. that he governs it by his providence. that he ought to be worshipped. that the most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children. that the soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. so, at the end of his life, franklin was a providentialist,

a believer in the duties of worship and benevolence. and he expected god would rule in a final judgement. so, pretty good. then he continued. as to jesus of nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, i think the system of morals and his religion as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see, franklin wrote. but he still had doubts. quote, i apprehend christ's teachings have received various corrupting changes. in other words, he's not sure that he can trust what the new testament says about jesus' life and teachings. corrupting changes. and i have some doubts as to his divinity. though it is a question i do not

dogmatize upon. there is that word again. dogmatize. having never studied it. franklin never doubted how admirable christ's moral teachings were, he just didn't know if he could accept the new testament's doctrinal claims about jesus. franklin thought, quote, it needless to busy myself with it now when i expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. there he goes joking again, right? he knows he's going to be dead soon and he's going to go and he's going to find out whether he was right or not. so in this life, he just wasn't sure whether he could know the truth about christ, the bible, salvation, but he was going to find out soon. in spite of his qualms about traditional christianity, he

saw, quote, no harm, however, in it being believed, in it being believed if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines, jesus' doctrines more respected and better observed. so you can believe if you want, but for franklin, the point was never just belief but virtuous action, moralized christianity. i shall only add respecting myself, he concluded his letter to styles, that having experienced the goodness of that being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, i have no doubt of its continuance in the next. though without the smallest conceit of meriting such goodness. god had always been good to him, franklin said, and he saw no reason to think that god's kindness would stop when he died.

and die he did. on april 17th, 1790. and he left -- when he died, he left the enigma of his faith unresolved. but in his code of doctrineless moralized christianity, franklin became the founding father of perhaps the most pervasive kind of spirituality in the western world today. thank you very much. [ applause ] the conservative political action conference is meeting this week at maryland's national harbor. energy secretary rick perry, interior secretary ryan zinke and congressman mark meadows will be among the speakers. live coverage gets underway at

8:35 a.m. eastern on c-span2. and later in the morning, president donald trump will speak at cpac. other speakers include kellyanne conway, linda mcmahon and the head of the fcc chair. that's live at 10:05 a.m. eastern on c-span. join us saturday at 9:30 a.m. eastern on "american history tv" on c-span3 at the american civil war museum in richmond, virginia, for live coverage of the civil war's impact on americans. speakers include peter carmichael, director at gettysburg college civil war institute, james robertson, author of "the untold civil war." jane schultz, author of "women the at the front" and amy morrell taylor the author of "the divided family in civil war america." from the georgetown university law center. guest speaker thomas west talks about hiss book, "the political

theory of the american founding." >> in a republican form of government, namely based on consent elections, virtue is needed more than in any other form of government because in a republic the people themselves pick the rulers. >> sunday at 4:00 p.m. on "real america," the 1956 film "i city decides" about the historic supreme court decision brown v. board of education. >> group youth had delegates from all the high schools in st. louis. >> well, all i know is that our school there are some kids who just don't like colored people. >> well, hey, some of the kids in our school don't like white people either. >> well, i think it's the individual that counts. how are you going to get to know a person unless you meet them? >> when the supreme court ruled that segregation was illegal, these children were traed. >> and at 6:00 p.m. on "american artifacts" we look at a selection of popular political cartoons from the early 20th

century. >> and clifford variman continued to draw for the "washington evening star" for the next 42 years. his cartoons appeared almost daily, usually on appeared almo daily on the front page of the paper, he had quite an ill lust reious career. >> watch american history tv every weekend on c-span 3. monday, on c-span's landmark cases, we'll look at the supreme court case mccullochv maryland. restricted state action against the legitimate use of this power. explore this case and the high court's ruling by the university of virginia, associate law prfrs farah peterson. and mark kilnec