announcer: you can watch at this and other programs on the history of communities across the country at c-span.org/citytours. this is american history tv only on c-span3. ♪ announcer: you are watching american history tv. every weekend on c-span3 explore the nation's past. american history tv on c-span3. created by america's television company and brought to you by these television companies who provide american history tv to viewers as a public service. ♪ announcer: following disputes over the 2020 election results and riots of the u.s. capitol, a panel of historians discusses several contested elections. 1800, 1824, 1860, and 1876. they compare them to each other

the 2020 election, explaining the effects on american democracy. the massachusetts historical society hosted the event and provided the video. >> i am already grateful to the mhs and our panelists to give me a chance to talk and even better to listen, to sort through the very confusing events of this week in which we saw things we have never seen in our history. we have a blue-chip panel of historians to help sort through and order the chronology to which we will address disputed presidential elections of the past. we have peter of the university of virginia, very distinguished historian of thomas jefferson and his world. the author of more than a dozen books. the most recent of which was most blessed of the patriarchs

which he cowrote with annette gordon reed. joanne freeman of yale university will help us sort through the difficult elections of the early republic, especially the election of 1824. she's also the author of many books. she has writings of alexander hamilton and most recently "field of blood." rachel of pennsylvania state university and alex will help us think about 1860 and 1876. i have also been writing about 1860 in recent weeks and have a book out about lincoln's very difficult train trip after winning the election and only yesterday -- time is going by so quickly i can barely remember -- but i wrote an op-ed in the new york times about a near riot

that took place in february 1861 on the same day that congress met to count the electoral certificates much like wednesday. rachel is the author of recent book about popular sovereignty in the coming of the civil war. erik is finishing a book called revolution for stalled democrats in the 1870's. we are lucky to all be here at the invitation of the mhs, which among other things, is a presidential library. it holds the paper of john adams and thomas jefferson and john quincy adams. those are three presidents right there. in my own research on 1860 i found the diaries of charles francis adams senior and his

sons. to be incredibly valuable. they were in washington and another royaled moment as the country was not sure if a newly elected president would make it to washington. thank you, mhs. thank you all for coming in such large numbers. we want to hear from you, too. after we historians have talked we will open it up to q&a from everyone. peter, thank you for joining us. the election of 1800, those of us who study history remember jefferson's words of being republicans, but it was a contested election. can you tell us what was difficult about the election of 1800? peter: everything. everything was difficult.

i think a good place to begin is with the idea of what was it? how did people experience it? if you use the trendy expression of real-time, things were happening in real-time. i do not want to talk about recent events of course, but what would real-time be in 1800? 1801 is when the rubber hits the road. real-time's local time. there is no mediation. we have no social media and so we now campaign forever. they voted forever. the election of 1800 took many months and took place in the various states. another thing i want to point out is the electoral college was not controversial because it was part of the grand bargain, which was the federal constitution. if you believed in anything that

would hold the country together, it was the constitution and the more perfect union it is supposed to be creating. that is an interesting change until now of one person, one vote. forget it. we are talking about sustaining a federal republic of semi sovereign, autonomous states. that federal republic was always in the early period on the verge of collapse. so the short answer to your question, everything is at stake because nobody knows if it is experiment and republican government is going to see. i would like to add one more thing. if union is all important, it is important not just because we have to find a way to compromise these difficult issues of slavery and trade and immigration.

well, this all is taking place in a world at war. a world in which the united states, the barely united states, are in a state of existential risk. and so the divisions we have among americans between we are all federalists, we are all republicans, we are all at each other's throats because we do not know what the future holds. americans, if there is mediation in the 1800 and 1801, it is through the lenses of the french revolution. it is with the idea that the future of mankind is at stake because of fundamental division between those who support a traditional, old regime hierarchy and those who favor popular sovereignty and self-government. now we take that for granted, or

we did until this week, republican self-government, but it is the last thing you can take for granted in 1801. ted: thank you so much, peter. joanne, we are so lucky to have you. thank you for joining us today. your work really eliminates the current moment because you have brilliantly shown in your books how close to the surface politics was to violence. i am sure we are going to want to get to that, but at the mhs we always like to come back to the adams. just as john adams was in the election, peter told us about john quincy adams. can you walk us through the basic events of 1824? joanne: sure. at the time -- this will not

surprise anyone here to learn that moments of fraud politics produce fraud elections. [laughs] peter just described 1800. in 1824, he recently had an economic crisis panic. slavery was a crisis throughout this period, but for years back there was a copper and forging a compromise does not leave people feeling comfortable about the thing that was compromised. you get to 1824 and with all of that angst you also have essentially one party that is dominating the national government, the democratic republican party. what happens in that election is that party, not unified but splintering, the different splinters of that party put up different candidates. you end up getting four main candidates running for president in that election, and that includes john quincy adams,

andrew jackson, henry clay, and william crawford, who nobody knows about. so, they run for office. andrew jackson wins the electoral popular vote. but not by absolute majority. what happens, and i think it is only happened in three times in american history, is that the election has to be thrown to the house as determined by the constitution into a contingent election. now according to the rules that election, the house decides between the the top three candidates. henry clay gets tossed because he was not one of the top three. the house now has to figure out which of those candidates is going to win the presidency. each state has one vote. at the time there were 24 states.

i believe you had to get 13 states to win the presidency. so they begin debating. henry clay, who is no longer candidate, he really, really, really hated andrew jackson. his policies were closer to adams'. what henry clay does is try to push people toward supporting john quincy adams so he can win the election and john quincy adams does indeed win. after adams becomes president he makes clay secretary of state and this is the part of the election that has echoes to the current moment. people immediately talk about voting fraud. they talk about a corrupt bargain. there was a corrupt bargain that clay said, make me secretary of state and i will get you made president. despite the fact there is not necessarily evidence of a

corrupt bargain, those kinds of charges, which we are seeing all too well, have power, right? that is part of the legacy of that election. this corrupt bargain idea which andrew jackson and his supporters really bank on for the next four years and in 1828, it raised jackson to presidency. edward: thank you so much, joanne. rachel, i do not think any election has resurfaced as much as 1860 over the last year. sometimes with the dread and other times people celebrating. you see bumper stickers or t-shirts, civil war 2.0, and the photograph of the confederate flag being prorated in the capitol. i am sure we are going to want to talk about 1860. we will get into the details later, but can you tell us who are the candidates, what are the

issues, was as divisive as 1800 and 1824? or was it a reasonably conclusive result despite the fact they were searching emotions underneath -- surging emotions underneath? rachel: that is the most interesting part. all of these other elections have some, feel of contestation but 1860 was a pretty -- there were four candidates in 1860 but that was not uncommon. you had four different candidates, abraham lincoln from the republican party, you have two democrats, stephen douglas and john breckenridge. douglas representing the northern wing and breckenridge representing the southern wing. the democratic party had met in charlston earlier in 1860 and tried to come together on a

candidate and platform, but southern democrats walked out of that convention. as a result they ended up splintering and you end up with two differ candidates. the final candidate was john bell who represented the constitutional union party, which is also a party we do not know much about or think much about now. interestingly, as a tied to the massachusetts historical society, his running mate was edward everett whose diaries and papers are at the manchester massachusetts historical society. he has some of the best handwriting. [laughter] the election moves in a pretty standard fashion. when important things are recognized about 19th-century voting is there was no standard ballot. in each state each people voted by bringing a party ticket with them to the polls, they would

cut it out of the newspaper, republican newspapers would print tickets, democratic newspapers would print tickets. you did not go to an election place and fill out a ballot like now and what we call the australian ballot. this is what happens and took across the country. in northern states, you have republicans bringing those republican tickets to vote for lincoln. lincoln ends up winning most northern states and the west, california and oregon, although that was more because the democrats split. lincoln wins the second lowest percentage of the popular vote after 1824. he wins less than 40% but wins 180 electoral votes which is more than he needed. he needed 152 at the time. probably not likely the democrats could have won even if united, but the election goes through pretty easily.

there is not anymore fraud or corruption than there typically is in the 19th century. the voting experience being what it is at the time. but it is the reaction to lincoln actually being elected that i think people are drawing comparisons to. lincoln is elected. the folks in the democratic party except lincoln has been elected, but they do not like the consequences of that. shortly after his election we get the secession of south carolina december 20, 1860 and other states follow. edward: thank you so much, rachel. i want to thank you and erik, our next historian, for writing so well and quickly, rapidfire op-eds in real time and this wednesday before the riot -- i'm still looking for the right word to use. ted cruz went into a fair amount

of detail about the election of 1876 arguing congress should create a commission like it did in 1876 to send the vote back to the states. immediately you and erik responded in a wonderful op-ed in "the washington post." turning it over to you, erik. 1876 is coming up fast as an election we need to know about again. pretty similar in some ways to 2020, different in others. can you walk us through it? erik:absolutely. let me echo what others have said. i am excited to be part of this and glad we have the opportunity to what has been a really stressful few months into historical context. 1876 might be the closest parallel. there are remarkable similarities between what happened in 1876 and 2020.

there is also important differences we can talk about. it was an extraordinarily complicated election. i think it is an election most americans are not particularly familiar with, although it is coming up more and more. for those americans who are familiar, they have heard a condensed

understand about the context for 1876 is this is the first election after the civil war where both of the major political parties were at full strength. of the four elections we are talking about this is the first one of the four that featured both republicans and democrats. strictly republicans and democrats like we have today. in 1876, particularly in the south, there were large numbers of white southern democrats, former confederates, coming back to vote for the first time since the civil war. there are large numbers of black men also in the south. some are also voting for the first time and their voting republican. the result is you get this partisan and polarized atmosphere. also, incredibly high level of voter turnout. 1876 remains the highest turnout in american history of eligible voters at 81.8%. because this is the 19th century women still cannot vote in most of the country. by comparison we do not have official numbers yet, but i think most estimates put 2020 around 65% to 70% turnout. you have this hyper polarized atmosphere. the democratic candidacy was tillman, governor of new york. rutherford b hayes was also put

up her candidacy. most thought tilden had won. he had 184 of the votes needed. there were three southern states, florida, south carolina, and louisiana, with votes contested. in the weeks after the election it became clear very quickly there were rampant problems with fraud and especially voter suppression. more so than was common in 19th-century elections. in one of the states of south carolina, voter turnout was mathematically impossible, 101%. clearly there was fraud but there was also this horrific campaign of voter suppression across the south.

particularly in states that had disputed votes where white southern democrats used extra military groups, like the ku klux klan and others, in the used violence and intimidation to prevent black men from voting. like today the electoral votes of individual states were certified at the state level. they used canvassing boards and state governors certified. those were controlled by political parties. what happened in 1870 six was each political party effectively certified its own results in a contested state. the outcome was that each of these three contested states sent two sets of electoral votes to congress for certification. let me be clear this is very different than what we saw in 2020. even though this past election there were frivolous, and frankly a legitimate, lawsuits that challenge the vote, none of the outcomes in the states this past year were legitimately in dispute.

every state sent a clear and uncontested result to congress. but in 1876 three states sent to sets of certificates to congress and effectively told congress, you decide. unlike 2020 the only thing governing the process in 1876 was the 12th amendment. that had been ratified in response to what took place in 1800. the 12th amendment is not specific. there is nothing about how to handle contested votes. it says once congress gets the vote they count them, but it does not say who and how. this is really an unprecedented crisis exacerbated by the fact this is only 12 years after the civil war, there is tension, polarization is high, and there is a lot at stake. not only the return of former confederates to the polls, but really big questions. what the united states is going to look like. questions about the rights and citizenships of

african-americans in the south, and frankly, questions we are grappling with today. the solution rachel and i wrote about, the kind ted cruz talked about in the joint session on wednesday, this was a bipartisan electoral commission. there are really complicated reasons why the commission is not necessary, which i will not get into, but it was made of five members of the democratic house, five members of the republican senate, and five supreme court justices. congress chose for justices including two republicans and two democrats and those for justices would pick the final member. most assumed that final member was going to be a justice named david davis of illinois. he was an independent and thought he might favor tilden. at last moments, he actually resigned because he was elected to the senate by illinois. in his place the final member was a republican justice named joseph bradley.

the commission listened to arguments in february 1877. in the 19th century inauguration took. . place in march not january ultimately, they awarded the dispute to republican rutherford b hayes in a series of strict party line 8-7 votes. it was a truly unprecedented crisis, but i will close with one comment. in thinking about 1876 and 2020, tilden did not file lawsuits for the outcome in the same way the trump campaign did. but there were actually dozens of state-level lawsuits filed by representatives of both political parties challenging the results and the decisions of these candidacy boards. after the federal commission decided hayes, they said you should challenge the final results. there were scores of white southerners writing to tilden and swearing to use violence to

challenge the results. i have been thinking about that a lot in the context of what we saw wednesday because what happened on wednesday is exactly, exactly what people in the winter of 1876 and 1877 were afraid of. but tilden refused. in part because he, like many others, were terrified of reigniting the civil war, and even though he believed he was the rightful winner, he chose not to challenge the result and that is perhaps the most important difference. edward: thank you so much, erik. thank you all. we have been schooled in the long history of electoral dysfunction, that is a phrase, in american history. now i just want to throw it open to all american history including, i think we all want to talk about this week and the two weeks remaining, little bit

under two weeks, and the possibility of the possibility of the 25th amendment being invoked. i have studied one tough transition. like rachel i worked on 1860 and i lived in one. i was a clinton staffer. i was there in a weird time of november, december 2000. but i think this is well past 2000 in its dysfunction. probably a little shy of 1860. it feels like the second worst ever, but it might be the worst ever. do any of you want to argue we are in the worst election in american history? joanne: i will take a swing. [laughter] very historian-like of me. the argument for that is partly, i think -- it is important to

note, and several people have already said this, as though there was never violence in or around the capitol. it is not as if all elections were happy moments were people held hands. much of what happened here has roots in political behavior and electoral behavior and american politics. what is striking this week is that it was a mass mob attack intending harm of some kind and encouraged by the president of the united states. in scale it is kind of on its own track. i think one could argue because of that and added to that -- and we can come back to this later -- i think a lot of americans

don't understand how democracy works and what is so bad about what happened. throughout american history not everybody happily understood the subtleties of democracy, but right now we are at a particular moment where it would be great if people had a better understanding if they had an understanding of what democracy was. peter: i want to talk about how bad 1800 was. what i see in 2020 is a matchup is a theater mapped onto a system for an entirely different country. it is the conjunction of invoking the revolutionary generation.

but if you go back to our century, the 19th century we are talking about today, the distinction between political or military mobilization is narrow. i would say the american revolution is the first big election since 1876. people are making the same kinds of choices they thought they were making in 1800. they thought the future was at stake. i talked about how local politics was. think about the military, militias, think about the way people participating in the war, and one of my favorite things about 1824, is the way they marched to the polls. that idea that this is a struggle and that the robust

conception of citizenship entails the possible use of arms because you do not trust -- the union is all important. you do not trust your fellow americans. americans. that tension between you need to stay together and that centripetal impulse tearing apart and the capacity of local communities to mobilize in that they can take over government -- this is a different role. the playacting we just saw -- some were wearing costumes, right? they were reenacting. that does not make it trivial. this is a horrible moment in american history. what it says to me is we take for granted the continuation and

ongoing story of america and you can't -- everyone knew it could follow part in the early period. that's critical. prof. widmer: it's amazing how much was happening at the same time. there were neo-confederates and holocaust denialists and the guy with the horns -- prof. freeman: the guy who was dressed like george washington kneeling in front of the capitol. prof. widmer: one of the things i am thinking about is how poorly enforced our rules often are.

we often think with the constitution we have a clear roadmap, but a lot of this is improvised. erik just told us about the weird commission of 1860 six with five and five and five. where does that come from? there's a fair amount of doubt -- peter can tell us -- about which guy on the jefferson ticket would be president, aaron burr or thomas jefferson? it does feel like when john adams accepted it, we are now in a moment when a defeated candidate refuses to concede and he is still the president. that's a problem no founder anticipated. how important was it when adams actually conceded defeat to jefferson? >> adams could not wait to get

out of there and that's why he did not stay for the inauguration. you are right, ted, about the ridiculous failure of the system. they had two people with the same number of votes and the rule was the one with the same number of -- the one with more votes would be president and they had the same number. we had it thrown into the house where there was improvisation, where the rules were not clear. people take things for granted. that's the big wake-up call right now. >> i would just add that 1860

produced its own version of that. the states that seceded, the folks that remained in the union did not want to accept the idea that secession was a legal process. that was extremely tricky. what to do with the senators and congressmen who had left the capital and had not officially resigned their positions or had resigned in some fashion, but not in a way that made perfect sense under the rules? a lot of these elections, but i think in general in the 19th century, there was a lot more experimentation or recognition you had to experiment with the constitution and realization that the constitution did not have the answers to all of the things the people needed when it came to elections, when it came to political crises.

prof. widmer: there is an assumption, on -- among americans that you get the constitution, but people forget that the 19th century was this -- prof. alexander: there is an assumption among americans that you get the constitution, but people forget that the 19th century was this time. we get stuck in these crises where there's not an actual rule. it's just assumed people would do this. we saw this in 1876, 1860. prof. freeman: i think along with improvisation, there's also

something people might have known and dismissed, but the fact of the matter is there's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that's not very savory in all of these elections that was not necessarily apparent at the time and people now do not necessarily know about, but cause people to think and actually realize that never is anything as sure as we think it is. an example of this -- i just forgot where i was going -- oh, an example of this actually is 1800. it's a letter that somehow or another i did not read when i was riding my first book. it's jefferson -- when i was writing my first book. it's jefferson writing after the election was decided. the letter basically said, and

it got thrown into the house it became clear it might not be decided in what felt like a just or right way. we felt like it went the wrong way or an unjust way, there would be violence. there you have 1801, an open statement like that, which i'm sure everyone here -- there's lots of examples of all of these things behind the scenes because of the improvisation. >> weren't people getting beat up in the 4 elections you helped us understand? werther thugs -- were there thugs pushing people around? prof. shelden: that was a feature of 19th-century

elections more generally. you had shoulder hitters. there was violence all the time. to pick up on something peter said earlier, there was a newer group in 1860 called the wide-awake, a militarized group of republicans who had these massive marches and rallies that really bordered on military demonstrations. violence was an expected part, and it was part of the process of voting that you knew you were going to encounter that. that's a big difference from today. you do not expect to go to the polls and encounter a shoulder hitter, for example. prof. alexander: i would say, yes, it's part of this political culture. the election is a social event. there's alcohol. it takes a much more sinister turn after the civil war, when you have the violence aimed at

preventing black men from voting in the south and that level of racism. and that takes an entirely different tone than the kinds of violence rachel is talking about, which is also important. the short answer, ted, absolutely, yes, violence was a regular feature of 19th-century elections. prof. widmer: i think we are seeing a very specific flaw in the constitution we did not anticipate which is the first term president when defeated still has a great deal of power to mess up the system, and there's a long transition. peter mentioned john adams really wanted to get out of there. john quincy adams, it would not have been a problem with him. is there any other evidence of a defeated one-term president causing disruption between the election and the next

inauguration? i can't think of any. prof. onuf: no, i don't think so. prof. widmer: so we are off the known map right now. given the growth in executive power, it's really a very dangerous situation. i think it was only last night in the news, nancy pelosi has been speaking with the joint chiefs to kind of constrain donald trump's power to start a war or set of nuclear weapons. the presidency is extraordinarily powerful. when you have an extremely unhappy, losing candidate who is the president, there's the potential for great mischief. i'm not sure what the remedy will be for this, but we, like in 1876, and in our lifetimes we have seen other moments, like

after watergate -- it's a deep re-think. it's the checks on the president. we may need a new round of constraint. it felt like when congress came back late wednesday night, they were mad and they're still mad and it may be the beginning of the legislative branch taking some power back after a long period of giving it up to the executive. do you agree? prof. onuf: i think that would be a great thing, ted. what you had in the 19th century, particularly early on, it was not random violence in which the people like at the capitol bring their cell phones and take selfies and whatever. you have arms of political organizations, states, institutions.

in a way some of that takes place with the extremes of constitutional legitimacy. it's unclear, with the military for instance, what the role of the militia is. i think people are taking citizenship and voting seriously in a way i have never seen in my lifetime. there has been massive cynicism about the worthlessness of your vote. i think it's even reflected in the nostalgia for the revolutionary war were people do play act at being soldiers. what the answer to that is is for people who want to uphold order to use the capacities of government to make this a better

place in a better world, they now see the possibility of their own civic participation as the answer. that's the real answer. i agree with you, ted. we have to address the issues of criminality and anarchy. and congress definitely needs a reboot. it has lost all respect -- these are our representatives. but we don't identify with them. i think the identification of irate citizens with their citizenship -- that is the most powerful and efficacious antidote to the nonsense we saw. prof. freeman: the re-think -- and it seems to me this is not being talked about very much -- we saw this happen in the very

seat of democratic governance amidst the ceremonial process of vote counting. all these things we saw, we kind of take for granted. yeah, yeah, yeah. all of these ceremonial things that were put in place and are followed seemingly without thinking very hard about them. when something interrupts that, when the capitol itself is desecrated in that way, there's a power in that. everybody is talking about the caning of charles sumner. that's the one thing that people know happened in congress. abolitionist senator charles sumner is caned very violently in the senate by a southern senator. a really violent act. because this took place in the senate on the senate floor. to the northerners, it is the south and beating the north into submission. there is symbolism there. i think that is some of what is

going on with what peter just said. some of what is causing the anger is not what happened. the guttural punch of it is because of the way it happened, because we could see it, and again, we took this for granted as being ceremonial, but it actually matters. prof. widmer: what was your reaction to the photo of the confederate flag with charles sumner right behind it? prof. freeman: i believe calhoun on the left -- no, that, to me, there it was. [laughter] every historian i think was like -- aah. it was remarkable in so many ways. this flag that doesn't belong there in any way literally trapped between his street with someone standing there unaware

of any of that history. it feels like one of those pulitzer prize-winning photos because it captured so much in such an amazing image. prof. shelden: i just want to add something to that picture. the caning is what we often know about charles sumner, but one of the interesting things that happened during the war is there are recollections about members of congress and senators who are remaining and they have sympathy with the confederacy, and in february 18 62, the senate votes with the indiana -- february 1862 the senate votes with the indiana senator imparts because of his relationship with jefferson davis. he has a letter of introduction. in sumner is the one who leads the charge and says the senate should expel traders --

traitors. i thought about that and what he would have thought about the confederate flag being waived in front of him. the senate cannot have traitors. prof. freeman: the other thing about sumner is, he's out of congress for a while after the caning. he comes back and he is a riproaring speech, and a big part of that is a whole chunk of that speech which is about the barbaric slaveholders and congress. violence happening in the capitol. that is such a sign of what the south is contain so much. prof. alexander: it may be naïve, but in the midst of the national conversation we have had, i could not believe -- prof. widmer: it may be naïve,

but in the midst of the national conversation we have had, i could not believe there was a painting of calhoun hanging in the capitol. >> i deplored the events of wednesday. i want to make that clear. but there is a long tradition in massachusetts and in pennsylvania in the united states of people who are disaffected. the bonus army under hoover. they come into washington and they have grievances. maybe not the most focused grievances, but they feel a right to come in. donald trump is often compared himself to andrew jackson. i think that's a stretch. but there's a kind of jacksonian way of thinking. the u.s. government belongs to

us. we built it. is there any historical document -- argument to be made to justify the other side? i'm just trying to be as fair as possible. prof. freeman: i'm interested to see what others say, but of course there is a right to protest. we have a right to put ourselves in washington. people have a right to have strong disapproval of the government. often these are called rebellions or whatever. they have a right to strong criticism and protest against the government. what they do not include is literally attacking an institution with the intention of overturning a political process and doing harm. that's not protesting. prof. widmer: that's a good and there -- good answer, joanne. prof. shelden: i would just add to its rejection of democracy --

add that it is a rejection of democracy. it is questioning the legitimacy of the people who participated in that election and saying, we don't believe anymore in this democratic experiment. in 1860, that's exactly what happened, right? there was acceptance that lincoln won the election, but there's a rejection of what lincoln stands for and a rejection of the idea of him eliminating slavery and what the white southerners believe that lincoln was after slavery in their own states, which was not true, or at least not in the immediate term. but it is a rejection of the democratic process because there is a belief that there's not a legitimate union anymore. both of those reject the very foundation of what the united states is meant to be, whether it's really a democracy at the time when women and white women could not vote and we might have

some questions about -- anyway. >> go ahead, peter. prof. onuf: i was going to say, the choice the framers saw and the people who feared shay's rebellion, on one hand, anarchy, and on the other the total consolidation of authority. that is either way -- that is, either way, the mine -- authority is lost. that is why the constitution is so important. no one knows exactly what it is and that's actually a good thing. it creates boundaries at the edge of legitimate action that

is not quite breaking the law and not quite accepted norms. there is a cliff you can go off. the cliff into lawlessness and anarchy. anarchy is not democracy. there is a clear this diction. the word democracy did not become naturalized until the 19th century. jefferson did not use it much because it wasn't clear it was possible for ordinary people to participate in their own government. we are still asking it. prof. widmer: thank you, peter. erik, did you want to jump in, too? prof. alexander: this is building on what ted said. one of the things that we know about jacksonian democracy is this idea of rule by white men only. there's a clear division today

-- one side is more interested in making this as successful as possible and the other is not, specifically surgically targeting voters of color. when there are moments trying to expand who is included in that democracy, there's always been resistance. i think wednesday is part of that long tradition. prof. widmer: in about five minutes we will open it up to the audience. i can't wait until their questions. thinking a little bit about joe biden putting together his inaugural address. what does he say and how does he cover it in a way that begins to heal this nation? i imagine he will try to build bridges out to the trump supporters. i think that would be appropriate.

but how does he do it and does your study of history offer any concrete examples? maybe we should go in the same order -- peter, joann, rachel, erik? prof. onuf: well, certainly jefferson -- the idea that -- you started with a quote from his inaugural address. you said the right thing at the right moment. here's an argument for the efficacy. he was not accepting the legitimacy of douglas. he meant the people who would stay in the federal system. so a little disingenuous, but it was not necessarily taken to be in olive branch. but americans found an out.

the things that they expected, predicted did not happen. i think right now is an opportunity to enforce the law, to punish criminals who assaulted the capitol, and to punish some of the people who were involved in precipitating this. i'm suggesting in a lawful, sober, proper way, people have to be held responsible. i think he knows that. i am not saying a thing to him or anybody that's not common sense. the combination of saying the right things, establishing parameters, and why we need

robust, engaged citizens, that's really important. i'm just good to be the optimist. i think it's going to happen. prof. widmer: that's great. thank you, peter. joanne? prof. freeman: i will say two things. i totally agree with what peter just said. i would note it will be important for the new president to talk about the order of unity and accountability. there has to be accountability before there can be unity. there has to be some way of saying actually a line was crossed. not to suggest in a punitive way, but part of what biden is going to have to do -- not in a let's all hold hands and it's fine now way -- what does this mean? we are suffering on that count in so many ways. americans, we are beyond

listening to each other and what just happened is an example of that. there needs to be unity. there needs to be accountability. some brilliant person has to come up with the way to make it clear that there can be a we, that there is still a we, that that diversity of all kinds and ideas -- in ideas, and every other way is part of who we are, and we failed at something in the past, but we can do better. prof. widmer: great. thanks. rachel? prof. shelden: i think i'm going to offer a controversial opinion here, and that is maybe to not follow lincoln's lead. one of the things lincoln does is he tries very hard to appeal

to white southerners. to the point of an original 13th amendment that would have made slavery legal in the united states forever, supposedly. he endorses it in his inaugural address. he tries to make this appeal. i think this is something that had been going on for quite some time in the 1840's and 1850's. you have white southerners repeatedly behaving as if they are victims in the united states, even though they hold enormous amounts of political power, and as a result, it becomes a situation where white northerners are repeatedly acquiescing to the demands of white southerners. and lincoln approaches this, i think, and a more conciliatory manner then maybe was advisable, may be. it depends on whether the war would have happened regardless.

in this space, i think maybe lincoln is not our model. he usually is, but he's maybe not our model in 1861. he was pretty quiet, as you have written about, ted. he was pretty quiet in the time between his election and when he came to washington, although he gave many speeches on the trail to washington. he was pretty quiet and then he was concealing a tory in his outward statements. -- can celia tory -- can celia tory -- conciliatory. prof. widmer: that's really interesting, rachel. prof. alexander: it strikes me one thing that is a feature and has upset people and they find so perplexing about our

political moment is the lack of bipartisanship your -- bipartisanship. we see constant appeals to bipartisanship. in the 19th century, constant bipartisanship did not really exist. what we are living through now is not new in the long arc of american history. i will be the pessimist to peter's optimism. at first it was very encouraged on wednesday and i stayed up late with many others watching all of the comments and i don't know how many saw -- there is this moment, this attempted insurrection, a riot at the capitol. you had all of the senators who had pledged to protest the vote and withdrew those ledges at the last minute -- pledges at the last minute. but there was a moment on the house floor, very, very late wednesday night, where there was

a fiery address and i thought really at this moment, we've just gone through this and you still have this guttural disagreement? if we are going to appeal to bipartisanship, we need to have a simple set of facts that we all agree on. it's kind of the challenge for biden. i agree with rachel. i don't think we should be conciliatory. as peter said, we have to make sure people are held accountable in the ideal bipartisan gets in the way of that -- bipartisanship gets in the way of that. prof. widmer: thank you all. i have a question from the audience. i have a question from carlos. it's for everyone. we have various statements

making -- world leaders making statements about america's democracy. emmanuel macron saying what happened in washington, d.c. is not america. so about the external perceptions of the hotly-debated u.s. election in a historical context -- was there a sympathetic view of the american system of governing? so, foreign perceptions. prof. onuf: i will say very briefly foreign governments were amazed we did not fall apart, that somehow this ungainly system with the military system on the top and the tradition of submission to hierarchy -- this thing works.

he was a little besotted by it. you can see the civil war coming right away. the fact that you could have strong, popular participation, mobilization, that's amazing to the enlightened world. prof. shelden: americans always thought we are spreading the light of liberty and democracy -- prof. freeman: americans always thought we are setting the light of liberty and democracy. and at some point we are disillusioned. charles dickens comes to the united states in the 1840's and he's one of the people who was like, wow, democracy. and he comes here and leaves entirely disillusioned because the united states was not like

he thought it would be. the south was horrendous. he thought slavery was horrible. he leaves just thinking whatever i thought was there is not there. i don't know what is there, but it's not there. the united states sets itself forward. it's good and bad in the weeks and months to come. prof. shelden: i think you saw that a lot in the civil war, too. lincoln famously called the united states the last -- there is a degree of support for the idea that the united states is this beacon of democracy and

this is a huge moment in the history of democracy during the civil war. again, in part because the united states talks about it in this way, it becomes part of the conversation around the world. >> this is turning the question about a little bit. americans are externally self-conscious about the civil war. and the idea that our democracy might fail and the rest of the world would be laughing at us. in some ways is very much un-american as well. prof. widmer: thank you all. we have a new question from jerry. some have suggested 14th amendment, section three, barring from federal office officials who have engaged in insurrection or given aid or comfort to those who have, rather than impeachment -- are

there precedents for this? and what were the outcomes? i can't think of any. prof. alexander: i will jump in. the 14th amendment is so enormously important. there's such a wide range in so many areas of constitutional law, but it's in the section of the amendment that people forget about. you have this section that anyone who is familiar with the 13th amendment knows. because most of it was put in there to effectively punish or limit the power of white conservatives after the civil war. that is where section three comes from. whether it has been used outside of that context, i couldn't say, honestly. prof. shelden: certainly not for a president. prof. alexander: no. prof. widmer: donald trump has

been pushing his confederate heritage, which, ironically, he does not even have. he will be prosecuted as -- prof. onuf: as a confederate. prof. widmer: this is from serena. "i would love to hear peter elaborate on his ideas of political violence edging constitutionality may not be off the edge." prof. onuf: i think the 1790's models of constitutionalism at the heart of polarization among americans, it was just how you read it and how you interpreted it. there's no constitution -- but there are positions you can take

and that's a big constitutional issue in the civil war as well. what sorts of authorities can be exercised at the levels of government that are more responsive to people? i just want to point to the political significance. it's best to have this organized in order to be ruled bound -- rulebound. we have to insist on civilian supremacy over the military so the military does not move beyond its proper authority and that's crucially important. on the level of individual citizenship and what it entails,

we admire soldiers, men and women who give their lives for the country, but this means submission to your own authority . i'm just saying violence is all around. and i would even argue the end of slavery is impossible without violence. there cannot be any serious movement anywhere around the world against slavery without a war going on. as we become aware -- again, this is theater we are looking at. it does evoke that sense of going off the edge of the abyss

and i think that's a great wake-up call. prof. widmer: thank you, peter. here is a question from carla. "thanks to the panelists. i was struck by the iconography of a protester carrying a crusader flag. would anyone want to comment on the role of religion in 19th-century elections?" presumably anti-catholicism? prof. alexander: certainly in 1876 it's part of the campaign. it something you see throughout the middle period of the 19 century, -- 19th, friendly bigotry against catholicism. i don't think -- frankly bigotry against catholicism. prof. freeman: you know, the

power of that iconography and what it represents is part of why it gets tracked into partisan politics. the best statement of that, i can think of, is a letter from alexander hamilton in 1802 may be? it's after the election of 1800 and he's tried to figure out what to do so things will look better, and he looks at the fact that the republicans, jeffersonian republicans, were very passionate about the french revolution. their emotions were caught up in it. he says, you know what to do that for us? religion. we will create a christian constitutional society. that's the most pragmatic statement about the recognized power religion can have in popular politics.

prof. onuf: i think there's another dimension to it. if you look at religious revivalism, christian america as a template for collective action -- the scary dimension is the faith commitment. it means you are taking your signals from beyond, a transcendent source, and that's moving into another realm. that's very dangerous. but that's where you have people moving into action. we neglect at our peril a blanket condemnation.

there are moral, ethical schemes at play. the most persistent source, i think -- prof. widmer: there is an interesting article about a person who is embedded with a white supremacist group and talked about the language they use in private. they love to talk about crusaders. white men are almost biologically determined, in their community, to be crusaders. crusaders is a negative sounding world -- word in most of the academic world. some of bin laden fame -- osama bin laden famously called americans crusaders. some people want to be

crusaders. prof. alexander: [indiscernible] john brown is the most famous classic example. religion was absolutely central there. this idea of being part of a greater cause, this part of the abolitionist movement. prof. widmer: from tom -- in any of these previous contested elections, is there a cult of personality like the trump supporters today? this seems like an example of a cult of personality beyond party coordination. prof. freeman: i think the answer to that is no. jackson comes closest. of course there was a degree of cult of personality around

jackson. it's very much about the democratic party when jackson is running. i think it was back to what you said earlier, ted. what was the role of the president in the 19th century? when you think of a presidency at that is much less powerful, a congress that is much more representative -- one thing we have not talked about -- congress was expanding in this period, and congress has not expanded since 9/11. we have a set number, and something like 1500 members of congress where we match it up with the rate of growth from the 19 century. so people cared a lot more about their congressmen and the cult of personality did not operate the same way even though you did have certain political figures take on certain significance. one last thing, many of these

presidents in the 19th century did not campaign themselves. the parties were campaigning on their behalf. they are making a lot of speeches. they're not going out and promoting themselves. prof. widmer: donald trump -- i don't know if anyone has ever met him -- i have not -- they say he has astonishingly small knowledge of american history. apparently he has almost never read a book. but he has an intuitive intelligence. there's something there. he understood that andrew jackson was his guy. i think very few would ask him what accomplishments of andrew jackson -- what he would come up with, but jackson comes closest to the cult of personality and he knew that existed and that was attractive. prof. freeman: who the heck knows, but if you're going to

know something about jackson, you're probably going to know -- you might know about the genocide of native americans, but on a more superficial level you know he is this raging, wild, angry guy, right? he doesn't follow rules and he gets his own way and people loved when he did that. to me, that was the very superficial way in which there is some kind of -- prof. widmer: yeah, yeah. prof. shelden: i would point out two big differences from jackson. one is, under pressure, jackson is in favor of keeping the union together. the second is jackson was in favor of getting rid of the electoral college. even though it favored white male democracy, he was more in favor of white male democracy than many of his predecessors, but in his first inaugural

address, he said, you know, you should get rid of the electoral college. it's not a fair way of electing a president. prof. widmer: not in favor -- could you imagine a duel between jackson and trump? trump would still be running. [laughter] prof. widmer: on the electoral college -- from mary catherine, of you think we should rethink the electoral college and abolish it? tough one. prof. shelden: i don't think that's tough at all. i do think we should get rid of the electoral college. one of the things that is hard now -- especially in the 21st century -- there were lots of attempts to think about the constitution creatively in the 19th century.

and there were many people who oppose the electoral college in the 19 century and the 20th century. there were many efforts to get rid of the electoral college in the 20th century. just because it is does not mean it has to exist. whether we have the will to eliminate it, that's another thing. but that does not go with what the political system should look like. personally i think we should get rid of it and i don't think there should be much question about it. prof. alexander: i would agree and i would add we desperately need to revise the electoral count act of 1887 that i learned a lot more about this year than i knew before. if you stayed up on wednesday night watching the process unfold it was because of that law which, by all accounts, is horribly convoluted and confusing and contradictory. i am hoping with the unified congress and white house, there

will be a will to do something about that. prof. onuf: i'm not going to disagree with my distinguished younger colleagues, but i still say that opposition to the electoral college, the sense that our votes are at risk, the fears of fraud, of suppression of voting -- this is energizing voters all over the country. it is something we need to deal with. but the real win to come up with a system that democrats will win because there are more of us. instead we need sustained leadership. i am not going to make an argument for the states as such. i will make an argument for political action at the local level and the state, because to

have sustained engagement over the long haul we have to believe citizenship really matters. one of the reason that we do is because the electoral college denied -- you can do something about that, maybe you can change the electoral college, but you need engage citizens. -- engaged citizens. prof. widmer: i spent most my life supporting the electoral college because i'm from a very small state. you feel privileged from rhode island to have two senators, two congressmen. there are a lot of small states. maryland, a great state -- prof. onuf: vermont is wonderful. prof. widmer: but i feel the damage of the election of 2016 and the election of 2000 -- i

don't mean to be too political, but the damage it did to the country each time, it is harder to move beyond it, so i'm changing my mind. prof. freeman: i love what rachel said about thinking creatively about the constitution. i ask he think these disaster elections encourage that, right? people are willing to think that way. there's a show, it was on broadway called "what the constitution means to me." part of the show involves pulling the audience, asking them to vote on what you think we should do with the constitution, and according to the woman who stars in that show, the audience always once to -- wants to redo the constitution. what's interesting to me as a

historian -- i am like, wait. but i do think people are willingly thinking and realizing precisely that. prof. widmer: we have one or two more questions. this is from laura. "i am wondering if the manipulation and condemnation of the press that we have seen from 2016 until now was a feature of the other contested election. is that wrong?" prof. alexander: i will say yes and no. in the 19th century, you had newspapers. most towns, you had to newspapers, one for each political party, so this idea that people lived in kind of their own little silo where they

only read news coming from their party was reality. there were echo chambers in the 19th century. i think though the question was where they manipulating -- i don't think it is what we are experiencing now with social media and between four hour news cycle. prof. freeman: i do think that though it's not normally the press, there was a 19th century pseudo-moment that highlights how technology changes democracy. in the late 1840's you have the telegraph. but the telegraph does is suddenly, -- it takes the spent

away from people and affects the conversation with politics. that is why it makes it so immediate and atomized in a way and hard to control with a president who tweets. it is complicated to the extent that we have two uncomplicated a little bit now with twitter deciding who should or should not be on a platform. prof. widmer: that was the last question. does anyone want to give concluding remarks? or a question that was not asked?

if not, i just want to give the deepest thanks to joanne freeman, rachel shelden, erik alexander, peter onuf. i want to thank staff. i really want to thank the audience. we have 480 three people still on. it just reminds me that people love history -- do not mess with massachusetts. so, thank you for your interest. thank you for hanging in there. thank you and let's all stay closely tuned to events for 11 days.

>> on american history tv you can watch lectures and college classrooms, archival films, tours of historical sites, and our programs on the presidency in the civil war. in all of our programs are archived on our website, c-span.org/history, and you can see a schedule of our upcoming programs. >>, sunday on "the presidency" we look back to past presidential transitions and inaugurations. here is a preview. >> as we begin, let us take inventory. we are a nation that has a government. not the other way around. this makes us special among the nations of the earth. our government has no power except the power granted by the people. it's time to check and reverse

the growth of government that shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. it is no coincidence our present troubles parallel the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. it's time for us to realize we are two great nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. we are not doomed to an inevitable decline. i do not believe the onus is on us no matter what we do. i do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. we have every right to dream heroic dreams. those who say we are in a time that there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look. i believe americans today are ready to act worthy of

ourselves, ready to do what must be done to assure happiness and liberty for ourselves and our children and our children's children. and we will be seen as having greater strength throughout the world. we will again be the exemplar of freedom and the beacon of hope for those who do not now have freedom. as for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, may they be reminded that piece is the highest aspiration of >> watch be presidency here on american history tv. >> you are watching american history tv, every weekend on c-span three explore our

nation's past, american history tv on c-span3 created by america's table -- cable television companies today brought you by these television companies who provide american history tv to viewers as a public service. >> in 1970, congress passed the occupational safety and health act and president nixon signed the bill into law. next, on reel america, we mark the 50th anniversary with three osha films released in 1980 by the carter administration, which were recalled by the reagan administration in 1981. first we talk to mark catlin, who has helped preserve the films and make them available to the public. mr. catlin: i was out of college beginning my first job. i was hired by a labor union in milwaukee, wisconsin to be on their health and safety staff.