sumpter was beaten, it was true, but not so badly. he's not seriously hurt.his whole speech was of a character very irritating to southern men. in the south reading this description celebrated the caning. and voted prizes for the congressman who had administered the beating. and then something else happened. as quickly as the telegraph had spread the news of the caning everywhere, it spread the southern reaction across the north. readers of the new york herald unfolded the papers to discover extended excerpts of the seven press raising chivalrous congressman brooks for beating the senate of massachusetts, and this was a new phenomenon in itself. masses of americans learn not only of a disturbing event more rapidly rapidly than ever before but also that other americans celebrated the very event that horrified them. it changed the political calculus in 1856. it became a way that americans were driven apart rather than together by the sudden speed and force of this information. americans learn something about each other, and they did not like what they learned a

the surrender of fort sumpter confirmed. north and south both preparing for war. the north ready to resist the injury and disgrace of flag and country. he may be earnest hemmingway read this diary. these kinds of quotations convey to us a sense that people at the time knew that the stage had been set for some kind of transformative event. the kind we know would be the great transformative event in our history, and understanding of what is essential to understand all the rest of our history looking both back and forward. >> we began this discussion with a quote by new york's republican senators, soon to be lincoln's secretary of state william seward who said the division between the free labor north and the slave labor south was leading to an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces. like many at the time, he believed slavery was at the heart of the conflicts that was tearing the nation apart. what we will end with is just taking some opposing viewpoints of the cause of the civil war and was it an irrepressible conflict? >> yes, and i drew the it

political issues between the north and the south and retain that internal focus from the firing on fort sumpter in 1861 to the april and may 1865. i can't give a talk on any subject related to the civil war in the united states at any time, no matter what i'm talking about, talking about the anteum campaign, whatever, and usually the statement is the civil war wasn't really about slavery and then what do you think about something else. if you take slavery out of the picture, slavery-related issues out of the picture we wouldn't be here, there would be no civil war, no sussuggestion and once we relax and accept that we can move forward and accept other things about the civil war. if you air brush slavery out of the picture there is no civil war. period. and a everybody at the time knew it. in his second inaugural address lincoln said everyone in the north and south, somehow everybody knew because of slavery is where we are now. it was stunningly obvious, you would have had to be a 20 watt bulb not to figure out what was going on. now i'm not saying that the world didn't watch what was going on i

sumpter to the confederate surrenders in it april and may in 1865. i can't give a talk on any subject, any relating to the civil war anywhere in the united states at any time without someone raising -- no matter what i'm talking about. i don't know, talking about the campaign, talking about whatever and one of first questions is always, usually not a question, a statement, the civil war wasn't really about slavery. and then what do you this about something else? if you take slavery out of the picture, we wouldn't be here today. there would be no civil war. there would be no succession. there is no three million men under arms on and on and on and on. just something once we can relax and accept that, then we can move forward and start accepting other things. if you airbrush slavery out of the picture, there is no civil war. period. everybody at the time knew it. lincoln said everybody north and south knew that somehow the institution of slavery is what brought us where we are right now. somehow or everyone, it was so stunningly obvious to anyone that

he commanded the artillery that bombarded fort sumpter. he went back and he was put in charge of the defense of charleston. >> tell us about the material that was taken down. was it deskr-- >> it says he resigned -- >> i will jump in and say, you know, one of the good thought exercises as we think about these things is to simply say -- to put the burden of proof on the defenders of these statues and say, is there a good reason that that plaque should be up other than the fact it's been there a long time. that's not a good enough reason. i think that those are -- that's a way of sparking conversation. that's also a discussion we have to have. something having been there for a long time -- the landscape changes, as you said. i have talked about these issues a lot with young people, students and so on. they're a little incredulous at any notion that things shouldn't change. of course they change. those who want the status quo should have a case to make beyond the fact that things have always been this way. >> i think we're going to have time

this is the fort sumpter flag from the civil war. i got it put on a mug to bring to my constitutional law class. but i had to custom design it. so you can get an american 50-state, 50-star flag on a mug. you could get a betsy ross, 13 stars on a flag and you could get a confederate battle flag, there is a market for that. but if you want the union flag you have to special order it. people don't identify that strongly with the union side in the civil war. and that is true even more so for reconstruction. so to say that's us, that's where we came from, well, yes, it is divisive. and when you talk about the declaration, there is broader buy-in. well, when i first started thinking about this, that seemed obvious. it seemed unavoidable. it seems unobjectionable. everyone could rally behind the declaration and you can't expect the same support for reconstruction but i come to think neither of those things is true. and when we tell ourselves the standard story, when we locate our ideals in the declaration of independence instead of reconstr