sits on with politicians on both sides of the aisle in an effort to form political stability. those conversations coming up on "washington journal". ♪ >> celebrate independence day during our july 4 sale going on at c-span shop.org. save up to 35% on all c-span

read, white, and blue products. there is something for every fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit organizations. scan the code and click on c-span shop.org. >> the c-span book show podcast makes it easy for you to listen to all of the podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one place you can discover new authors and ideas. we make it convenient to listen to episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events. listen to c-span's bookshelf podcast feed today. you can find it on the free c-span now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcast. and on our website.

>> c-span campaign 2020 for coverage gives you a front row seat to the election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail, with announcements, meet and greets, just, and events. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. c-span now our free mobile video app or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> listening to programs on c-span proves c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. listen to "washington journal" daily at 7 a.m. and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern catch washington today for fast-paced report on stories of

the day. listen to c-span any time. just tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by martin de caro the hosts of the history that happens podcast. guest: great to be here. happy july 3, i guess. host: you recently took a look at independence day on your podcast. guest: i did a part of the radicalism that happens the first part that came out on thursday so people can find that. my guests were two fantastic historians. and coming up next week i have a great lineup. trying to recover the egalitarian ideal and the e gala terry and rhetoric of the moment and focusing on why our founding

was so radical at the time. the idea that there could be a fundamental human equality as a guiding principle of a new nation. it's still radical today and we're still debating it, we are so fighting over it, we are still trying to find out what the meaning of the american revolution is. the idea of freedom, liberty just look at that supreme court cases of the last week. fundamental rights contested in the highest court of the land. some people it's freedom of conscience and others it you're discriminating against me because of who i am. host: when did you first come up on this idea that the declaration was a radical document as general guest: it's been in my head for a while. i've done a bit of reading on the origins of the country. this is nothing new. i've been giving it more thought lately because i think you probably recognize this as well

there's a lot of estimates and in our country today about the ineffectiveness of politics, lack of faith in our institutions like the supreme court. some people are throwing their hands saying abolish the court, it's a legitimate. whatever your position is on one of these issues so i want to focus on, you know, not what we think should have happened or should happen today but why things happened the way they did. our history, the history of political struggle and social struggle. what you get out of the american revolution is politics. as my guests on tuesday said the most profound antislavery political event in history to its time. you said user dynamic. our history is not just a

narrative of an unbroken system of injustice and evil one after another. it's always contested. so why does one side when certain battles in one side went different battles? we see this right from the beginning during the american revolution just to stay on top of the antislavery politics. before the war was over enslaved like people are collaborating with white based on the ideals that are percolating at the time and challenged slavery. sometimes there successful and sometimes they're not. sometimes one side wins, sometimes the other side wins host: if you want to call and ask questions about his work (202) 748-8001 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to text us you can do that as (202) 748-8003.

if we talked about the supreme court case we talked about the declaration of independence and the american revolution what other parables could you draw that can be drawn back to the declaration? guest: i mean, right now, all origin stories are highly contested. there's an idea that american revolution was or that some colonists thought for broke with the crown to defend slavery. you can draw a parallel almost anywhere just about everything in american history, it's highly contested. some arguments are based on facts, some are based on other things, politics, emotion, marketing, whatever. it's interesting as you were inviting the colors you were talking about the american revolution. the revolution is at least in my view it a moment of unity. it was a civil war in and of itself.

but a source, i think the common source or the common origin story of inspiration for all americans, regardless of your party, i think that's changing a little bit. i think the american revolution is the source of division as well. martin luther king's march on washington, the anniversary of that is coming up this year, the 60th anniversary. when the architects wrote the magnificent words of the constitution and the declaration of independence, they were signing a promissory note. look at katie stanton 1858 she patted her declaration of sentiment on the declaration of independence. so again a source of information -- inspiration for the women's suffrage movement. even men in 1945 voting -- quoted verbatim the decoration of independence. we can focus on a few -- what it

didn't accomplish for surgery abolish slavery gradually. it did not make women equal. there still had to be work we didn't get women's suffrage until the 20th century. but the politics of these movements was based on those ideals. host: you talked about slavery, how does your podcaster root address things to address that? guest: there's a lot of episodes about this and i have people all the time essentially the idea that there are two things. i think to arguments specifically about the american revolution and the one up to the civil war. it was a proslavery revolution or that some colonists fought in the revolution or broke with the ground to defend slavery. a lot of this misunderstanding stems from the dunmore proclamation from the late 1775. the last real governor of jena

he used a proclamation saying any african-americans who come to our side will be emancipated and that was true that did happen. but the problem with that argument is people say that was a tipping point, people who are on the fence talking about cause. that was the final break. that was the final straw you're going to start fraying our slaves were going to break with you and we are going to fight this war. there is almost no evidence that any colonists went for independence late 7075 over the proclamation. the colony had already been lost. i will keep this one brief the mistake of 1690 project they repeat this mistake. there was a mistake that is made there about the relationship between slavery and capitalism. it argues that we have modern capitalism because of human

chattel slavery. capitalism drove the development of slavery, the other way around. host: did you talk to the actual authors and the people behind the prophet itself? guest: i had spoken to two people who consulted with it. host: what did you learn from them? guest: they were different on some of these finer points. i think what they say and i think they make a point here is we shouldn't turned on the entire project because of one or two mistakes. i read the 1619 project when it came out the entire magazine version this is good stuff in there. i think people should watch it even if they might have a bone to pick with one or two things. they should expose themselves to all these ideas and do some reading for themselves. host: let's hear from earl, texas, independent line. most of the history athens

project good morning go ahead. caller: a lot of historians are accusing the guests of this they skipped a lorch swath of history and this is after slavery. what i mean is that public colleges and universities were free for one people up to the mid-1960's. 1961, 1962 public colleges were free for white people. government-funded colleges. a lot of the civil war a lot of white people received free land grabs and received subsidize housing, all their stuff from government assistance. somehow black people are being accused of getting government assistance, handouts and that's been the discussion since i've been a child. i'm 49. guest: i think earl is absolutely right. host: go ahead. caller: you were talking about martin luther king, and they forget one thing, jay baker hoover and annette this because

of the he was having fbi looking at dr. king and assisting white supremacist groups. people don't realize our history is not just cloaked in history. host: you made a point. guest: first i want to say i am not a historian. i'm a journalist and audio producer. my podcasts serve as a conduit between historians and the public. he is absolutely right history with regard to the civil rights movement is despicable and what was going on there. it was reprehensible. some of these other pieces of assistance, government assistance to whites and people after world war ii the g.i. bill

african-americans were largely excluded. mortgages, college education, that was the biggest piece of affirmative action, the g.i. bill. there is more to american history than slavery. we have jim crow after that, after that in my initial point we are still debating the meaning of the american revolution, freedom for whom? or as i like to say and i'm borrowing this from a historian who gets a seat at the table at the great american barbecue? caller: hello. i am wondering how that works. it seems like politicians, they are one side in the other end nobody talks to each other. they ignore, no common ground. let us try to have common ground to help everybody out. guest: we have a lot of problems

with that these days. i think our past is another example of that. this is nothing new, of course. history of wars go back a long way and every decade or so, there is another dustup over curriculum and what should go in curriculum. i get the sense that the fights are more bitter today than they have been, but i could be wrong about that. host: do you get the sense from historians that there has always been a divide, especially when it comes to political issues? guest: it has always been this way. look at the aftermath of earl's point of the civil war. the south won the battle over the textbooks. propaganda by professional historians in the dunning school

, he was not some nut. he was a history professor in the early 20th century. future generations of historians overturned the school and now pretty much no sane person would deny the civil war was fought over slavery and reconstruction did not fail, it was destroyed by white supremacist. host: the podcast is history as it happens, tell us about why you named it such. guest: trying to understand the origins of current events, not to be conflated with causes. also reevaluate the past, that is happening a lot right now. last weekend, we saw something of almost world historical importance in russia, there was a moment where it looked like he would bring his tanks all the way to moscow. the crisis was dealt with a deal.

we were witnessing history unfold. host: why the podcast format? guest: like you do here, you can allow the conversation to breathe. i can ask a question, sit back and allow my guest to explain himself or herself. i think it works well, i try to keep it around 45 minutes. i want people to listen to them. people might be more apt to read a 300 page book. half hour to 45 minutes is the typical length to make it accessible to people. host: if you are asked a follow-up when it comes to the 6019 project. what is the big mistake of the project in your estimation? guest: the idea it was a proslavery revolution, it is not true. host: elaborate on that. guest: the dunmore proclamation

in 1775, it has been misconstrued as a tipping point -- virginia had already been in revolt in 1774, the colony was lost to royal authority. george washington is already at the head of the continental army. i mentioned joseph ellis before. i spoke to him about this as well, he has read the washington papers. george washington was angry about the proclamation come as were many slaveholders. thomas payne mentions this as well. he is anti-slavery. ellis has read the washington papers, there is no evidence in george washington's papers he fought the revolution because he was trying to defend slavery. the british empire was the largest slaveholding empire in human history. the royal africa company and

stewart monarchy, that is how slaves get to the new world, referencing 6019. the british crown was not turned to end slavery, it is the american revolution that gave life to antislavery politics. we see this during the revolution. earl had a great call about how some much of our history gets forgotten about. for this holiday when we think about thomas jefferson -- i am wearing thomas jefferson socks. george washington, the usual heroes. think of people like felix holbrook, and enslaved men who started petitioning with other enslaved blacks in 1773, 1774. prince hall a few years later builds on the petitions, and these are mostly happening in the northern states where slavery was weaker. you had a lesser chance of winning these battles in south carolina or georgia.

another name, bristol lamb be in connecticut. we should be talking about these people, they were brave enslaved people who successfully sued for their freedom. one change her name to elizabeth freeman after winning her suit, they collaborated with white antislavery activists. these are the original abolitionists during the war, the same year that yorktown falls to the continental army. theodore sedgwick, a white abolitionist. they successfully sued the 1780 massachusetts constitution, saying the new constitution effectively abolished slavery, and they won. host: when it comes to history, how do you choose the topics you will cover in the podcast in the people you will talk to about it? guest: the information i am sharing, i have to cite my

sources, this comes from a guest on thursday's episode. he has been generous of my program, he is a brilliant historian. how do i choose topics? sometimes it is what interests me, sometimes it is like this, an anniversary or holiday. it is often what pops up in the news. after the near coup d'etat in russia, the rebellion by the mercenary force, i didn't episode with three different specialists on russian history about the origins and weather prudent-ism might be cracking. i haven't episode coming up about witchcraft, because the connecticut legislature just exonerated women who had been hanged on crazy allegations of being witches back in the 17th century. most of the time, i am picking topics, current events seeking origins of current events because i want to be relevant to

people. my podcast is not a boring history lesson. it is more talking about the relevance of all these things. host: do you think people view history as figures and dates and not people and events? guest: people find history dull or heroic narrative -- i am wearing thomas jefferson socks. they want more nuance and complexity, they want to understand the relevance. henry kissinger just celebrated his 100th birthday, so i talked to some historians about his legacy. especially in light of the folly of american foreign policy over the last 20 years in the war on terrorism. henry kissinger's legacy is controversial, some people think he is a diplomate and others think he is a war criminal. history matters to people. we are debating it all the time,

we have an emotional attachment to certain narratives. i am trying to flush that out on my show. host: tony in chicago. caller: good morning. i have a quick question for you, back to the revolution. hearing about henry kissinger, his legacy is millions of bodies in cambodia. what other legacy is there? host: there is no word -- more to his record, but cambodia was a disgrace. caller: i wanted to ask you quickly, the concept of whether or not this is something specifically revolution for slavery or proslavery. it is getting in the weeds a little too much. what was the motivation of the revolution? it was the first was the revolution against the crown to

liberate themselves where they did not have to give up taxes and repatriate goods from england they were producing at home. what was the prevailing economic engine at the time? who were the prevailing owners of land and capital at the time? white slave owners, white farm owners who owned slaves. the biggest part of the economy at that time. they liberate themselves from the ground was definitely a proslavery revolution, because they wanted to expand the model and expand their trade. host: thank you. guest: i would disagree with that. there was no threat to slavery from imperial britain. it was the largest slaveholding empire in human history. as far as western settlement,

the crown and proclamation line of 1763 wanted to prevent conflict with native americans west of the appellations, maybe that is what the caller was referring to. the northern states all moved to abolish the chattel principal, they gradually emancipate -- in some places, it happens faster than others. new jersey takes longer. slaveholders fought it at every step. you start to see the origins of a sectional conflict where in northern states -- the abolition of the chattel principal happens immediately, but slaves are gradually emancipated after they reach a certain age. the northern laws do not free anyone who was enslaved at that moment. they free the offspring of slaves after they reach a certain age. in the south, there were debates over the future of slavery.

in the south, it is different. i think the caller makes legitimate points, but goes a little too far. it was not a proslavery revolution. host: independent line. caller: i want to ask your guest , has he ever debated an open public forum? has he ever debated this subject with a true historian? he said earlier he is not a historian. guest: i have had many people on my show. wherever you find -- s4 is in a public setting, no. but i have had many conversations on my podcast about this issue. wherever you find your podcasts, you can search. if you use the search term slavery or constitution, anything like that, you will find all of my episodes right

have dealt with this. host: we do think about trends where historical events become historical dramas on streaming services, and how do you translate that as far as how it teaches history? host: i think it is great -- guest: i think it is great, i enjoy watching the shows even if they are not accurate. to an extent does a filmmaker have responsibility to stick to the facts? it depends. there is a new show on hbo. ken hughes has listened to more nixon tapes than anyone else. i think the shows are good because they get people interested in the subject and maybe they will then go and pursue it on their own. it also makes history come alive. you see people in the flesh. that is a black comedies, so it is different than a drama.

i interviewed greg barker, a filmmaker who did a program on showtime called ghosts of beirut , where he had to fictionalize certain things because you only have so much time in a tv series , and you only know so much of what actually happened. early 1980's, we are living in this world -- we talk about post 9/11, we see the origins of that in the post-1979 world with the soviet invasion of afghanistan in the civil war in beirut, which struck a blow against the peaceful settlement of the israeli-palestinian conflict. you start to see suicide bomber's for the first time. the u.s. is humiliated in beirut with the killing of 241 marines, which took place after the cia station was destroyed by a suicide bomber. the person who perpetrated the

acts, no one knew who they were for decades outside of his immediate circle. even they are, people did not know who he was. we talk about him and his legacy, which is not a good one. host: what degree are you concerned that people watch the dramas and fix those things as historical events versus what happened? guest: that brings up the comedy or the show hamilton on broadway, which no one is going to think that is how it went -- it is a brilliant show. there is a concern that people might think something is accurate. that is everything. it is impossible to ensure people will have the right and accurate information. some things are open to debate. there may be not one accurate narrative that can be produced. do not take what you see on tv as gospel.

do a little investigating on your own. host: bob in virginia, republican line. caller: thank you. i am wondering about historical accuracies and inaccuracies that arise in relation to the military history of the u.s.. world war ii, korea, vietnam. and the kennedy assassination, thank you. guest: i am not an expert on the kennedy assassination, i do not tend to believe conspiracy theories. the caller wasn't all that specific about inaccuracies in military history, so it is hard to address something specific. i would encourage him to listen to one of my recent episodes about d-day, came about a month ago about how we need to start thinking differently about war. my guest was a terrific

historian who just wrote a book called mercy, humanity and war. an idealized vision of certain conflicts, especially world war ii. it is considered the good war. the nazis needed to be defeated, but that is one thing. this is a difficult subject to broach, because the men who fought and died, they did sacrifice quite a bit. the landings at normandy were horrifying. the way we look at war is we need to stop glorifying violence and understand just how utterly miserable the entire experience was for your typical g.i. who frequently suffered from nervous collapse because they were so poorly trained, thrown onto the front line in the middle of the night, brought in as replacements so they could be chewed up like devious replacements. the campaign in france and europe in the winter of 1944 was

brutal and miserable. you do not often see that side of in popular culture. we have more of a saving private ryan hero vision of world war ii . host: romanticized. guest: like a small unit combat idea of war, that these massive conflicts can somehow be decided by the heroism of individual soldiers and that is not the case in modern warfare. host: what drew you to the way of thinking about war initially? guest: on the subject of d-day, i have always been fascinated. a relative of mine bought me a book about world war ii by john keegan. i guess it is a personal story, when i was a kid in the 1980's i liked rambo and stuff like that, then my father made me watch platoon and said, enough of this stuff where one man is running around taking on the entire

enemy in some type of phony depiction, start thinking more seriously. our country needs a reckoning with our foreign policy. post-world war ii, we have been involved in a lot of wars. we have not one many of them and the consequences have been disastrous. host: susan is in boston, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to ask, we know what the british did to the irish. would you comment on irish slavery in the united states? guest: there was no irish slavery in the united states. this is a myth that is floating around, african-americans were enslaved in the united states, not irish people. there may have been a system of injustice and place where the british treated the irish, but it is not human chattel slavery. host: rachel in florida,

independent line. caller: good morning. i have two questions, please. is it true that george washington was offered $5,000 if he would leave the revolutionary war -- before he was chosen, and that he turned that down? and if you could speak about -- they lost the revolutionary war, he would have been up for treason. the other question, could you talk about john hancock and his transatlantic company to earn money from england? i will hang up to listen, thank you. guest: i do not know anything about the $5,000 story, i will have to pass on that. have the revolution failed, what would happen to the revolutionaries? king george the third has been

wrongly treated as a brute. by historians and in the public imagination. part of this is the way the colonists in the declaration of independence itself, the 27 grievances are almost entirely about king george the third, some are not accurate. jefferson took liberties with those grievances. you can take the final field, which are pretty much justifications for a revolution that is already underway. the final grievances uses terminology we would not use today, merciless indian savages, basically blames king george for trying to incite slave revolts and indian warfare on the frontier. to pin that on king george the third is not all that fair. of course, the revolution was already underway. how would the king have treated the revolutionaries? it is hard to know, depends on

how long the revolution took place, how vicious it would have gotten. whether or not revolutionaries would have been ok going back to the status quo. i am only guessing. they would have been nished, that is usually what happens. the leaders certainly would have been punished severely. host: do you deal with presidential politics? guest: that is a niche these days. presidential policies come up a lot, i tough you jeffrey engel -- talked to jeffrey engel. we tend to look back on the past in terms of presidential errors. i am trying to do a show that is relatable and entertaining and fun. people can relate to presidents and they are usually more knowledgeable.

host: taking a look at trump. guest: the end of trumpism revisited, this brought up some history as well. the caller mentioned something about john hancock, i am not all that good on that subject. i will have to get back to her about that. the end of trumpism, there is a certain mindset in the country that just one more thing, one more outrage, that will be it. that is not going to happen. he has been indicted twice, he could be indicted a couple more times. he's done better in the polls as a result. he is the most popular republican party politician in the country. i will borrow a line from bill marr, the comedian. one of be like trump without personal baggage, right-wing populism in the campaigns. why would you vote for the tribute band when you can have

the real thing? historically, what he has done is something george wallace could not do. that is run as a third party or major party candidate and expand your appeal broad enough to become a nominee or take over the party. if you listen to the speech where he announces he is running for president in late 1991, a few months ahead of the new hampshire primary, he challenges the incumbent republican president. his speech is very much like trumpism. he talks about japan in those days, today it would be china. net of the cold war is over, we have to start taking care of ourselves here. we do not need the overseas alliances, we are spending all this money to have troops overseas. he was also opposed to

free-trade deals. we have 30 years of experience to say that some of what was warned did happen. trump was able to capitalize on some of that. also the cruel edge that trump has, you see some of that as well. host: john in arizona, independent. caller: this is an honor to speak with you, i listen to your podcast religiously, along with the way i heard it. guest: that is very nice of you to say. caller: [laughter] anyways, i have cataracts, so it is hard for me to read. i'm going to eventually get them taken care of. my question is, it plain what were the ramifications of an individual freeing their entire sleeve group in a community of

sorts? a lot of people do not realize the laws and what would happen if you for your slaves, and you can continue from there. i will listen. guest: i am not quite sure what the question is? caller: if an individual decides to free their slaves in virginia, what with the laws and ramifications of that particular individual that freed the slaves? guest: it depends on what period of time you are referring to. laws changed over time, often what would happen to the former enslaved people as they would have to leave the state. if somebody chooses a slaveholder or in slaver, there

probably would have been no compensation if it was done voluntarily. i do not know if i answered your question exactly, was not quite clear what you are getting at. but depends on the time period you were referring to and i can recommend a book that deals with different types of slavery and slave societies in the british colonies, all the way up to the civil war. many thousands gone by ira berlin, it shows how slavery developed in different ways in different parts of the country. host: one more call from robert in ohio. caller: hello. two questions. what, if any, is your relationship to lewis and where

do you place john brown in abolitionist history? guest: i am going to harpers ferry next week, actually. i read a bunch of biographies about john brown. i do not know any lewis, apologies if he is listening. john brown was in abolitionist, he hated slavery. he was a murderer, deranged and a terrorist. i do not think he was effective as an abolitionist. his idea to attack the federal army discredited the antislavery cause at a time and antislavery politics -- we were about to elect the first antislavery president of the united states, abraham lincoln. lincoln was not an abolitionist, though as the civil war develops, you get the emancipation proclamation and 13th amendment that abolishes slavery. so lincoln grows in that regard.

i saw a young guy walking around washington with a t-shirt that said john brown did nothing wrong, but what did he do right? he tried to convince frederick douglass to go along with him. thankfully, frederick douglass said no. later, he eulogized as brown. he is part of why southerners are so infuriated by brown. it was not just the attack on the armory and the idea of starting a slave revolt that would have been crushed by the u.s. army. this is not going to happen. part of the reason why slaveholders were angry as the reaction to brown on the part of northerners who have roast sized him. that continues today. host: the podcast is history as that happens, how often do you put them out? guest: tuesdays and thursdays, anywhere you can find your podcasts. host: thank you for your time.

guest: it was great being here. host: the house comes in at 10:00, until then we will talk with alexander heffner. he has a new series taking a look at civilian politics where he sits down with politicians on both sides of the aisle in an effort to forge consensus. that conversation when journal continues. ♪ >> former president theodore roosevelt died january 6, 1919. he was 60 years old. one author chose to focus mostly on the last two years of his life. it is titled the last charge of the rough writer, theodore roosevelt's final days. he takes us through his feud with president woodrow wilson.