Welcome back to Toffy TV as we continue to play Everton's Greatest Ever Team, 84-87. It's our third game. We're playing Porto Away, Porto 83-88. Togos dwi'n sgwrs o'r names that they've got buzz in their side. Paolo Futhre. Absolutely worthy of a player. Suzer. Jal Pinto. Jal Pinto. Very, very good captain, obviously. Gomez, Marge. Great size. Ruby Baros, he was good as well. Look at the kit. But the keeper. I can't, I don't remember the goalie. I'm not being funny. I don't know who he is, but I don't know what you get for scrabbling that name. Scrabble, you're getting 17. Scrabble, if you can get something. Let's do it. Let's do it. Come on. Here we go. Look at the grey kit. Wasn't one that many times, was he? Really? Wasn't really allowed, was he? I just thought we had nearly half that many changes, didn't we? Wasn't it something to do with the clash with the full lighter of something? It was something mad, wasn't it? Here we go. Come on, David. We had the yellow on black kit, but it wasn't available at the time. It was just that, you know what I mean. Like a training kit, it almost looked like. Here we go. Play to the lines, come on. Andy, can I? She's on the ball. Can you son? Can you son? Can you son? Can you son? Can you son? I think I was in there that day as well, any bits. Come on. Yes, come on. Have you made the run on a volley pass? Oh, what's that going into there?  Here we go. Run the corner. Run the corner. Here we go. Inside. Inside. Are you finished, son? Pop it, Andy. Pop it, Andy. All right. All right. Go for ball. Go for ball. This is what we want to do. The stadium deluge. It's good. It's very much like good. It's good. Don't worry about it. We don't need that. Let's get on the end of this. Let's get on the end of this with made a run like that. Here we go. Here we go.  Go on. Can you? Can you? Can you? Oh. He wasn't twang the post. It was... It was a wrathliff. Wrathliff. Oh, my days. Lucky. OK. Keep the shape, remember? Yeah. I'm keeping it. He's basically spunners. Like a spinning thing. There he stands. No one's beaten there from there. No, no. We haven't got great net hold off ship pieces. No, we haven't. We practice as much as you're a bit. Oh, mate. That's side by side of ship pieces. Here we go. Big ever. Go there, there. Go there, there. A man's head of that. Here we go. Pinstit. Play. Play. I'm going to hold it up. I've gone. I've gone. I haven't gone over there. Are fans here, mate? Well, I'm not quite sure if you have. But I've nifty. I'm doing it. I'm doing it as we speak. I'm doing it. Here we go. Here we go. Cheeky. Come on. Oh, a little deflect. Oh, no one on it. Oh, no. Great movement. It's delivery. Go on.  Get near it. Get near it. I tried. Go on. That's you. I said stay. I said keep the shape. We didn't keep the shape. Dax is holding the fort. Dax is holding the fort. We all run away. I left a big space. Dax is flapping his arms. You wouldn't believe. Oh, no, no. Neville Southall's son. Great head again. Strike. He's pulled it down. Neville's waving that away. It was his mark. I was going to the shot. Oddly enough, I was going to say his mark was rough. It's fine. Big win. Nicky, don't. Did he run a corner or a ball? Lenica, don't stop. Don't stop. He's celebrating. How has he saved that? Gary, Lenica, wearing the boots he wore at Oxford. Oh, he pinched him. Where's your mark when you need it? Where's the mark when you need it? All right. Dax is running. Dax is running. There's no new one got there. OK. Why was he running? Run towards the ball, lad. All right. Greater. Go down. Here we go. Come on. Silver boys. Sounds weird, but they go. It's going to be fair, Dax. It's going to be nice next. Great ball. It's got his tights on again. Go on, then. You've got to give it brilliantly. I've took it out. Evolio. OK. Come on. Great start of the half. Listen to us in the dressing room. Attack this, please. Attack it. Come on. Andy Gray. Had it down. I've got three as well. Andy Gray with your big shining head. I think he's 120. I think we need to change that. Oh, give it. Give it. That cliff, well done. I didn't really think you were going to pull it out. I mean, you'd have. You'd have won if you played with me. I'm a bit trouble here. I don't like this. We're fine. We're not fine. Like blow everything down. Don't give the ball away. Take our chances as well. There's two lessons we'll learn from these games.  You're absolutely in. You've got to throw a ball in. No, we're not. I've gone. I've played it. Oh, my word. He's lost the ball. Good ball. OK, that's better. Here we go. Triple change. I'm going to go on. I might have to change to you. Get in the box.  That's what I was then. I was in there hunting. I didn't know I knew it. I'm on out of his goal. Go on. Use your time to catch. I'm trying it going in with you. Oh, my God. I'll see that on the other way. I'm exposed. I'm exposed. I'm exposed. I'm exposed. If you don't win that, there's something very wrong with the wheel. I'm tired of it. I'm a little unsure. I'm one down. I can't quite believe we're one down. Ten minutes left. We've made all our changes. Let's try and follow the pattern of the 84 or 85. I'm not having the greatest of stars. Well played. This is a season of hope and dreams. Shit. How many did I get? This is what Joe wanted. No! What is that decision? He's played and dived. He's played and dived. I think the next game we need to start. We'd like to get it in the shop. I need to make some changes. Well, maybe Paul Wilson's go long. Get one clock on the bench. A gold we need to have till the gold score. Maybe clock or start? I think these players have not done what is required. It's all about the kick-off the backside. It's all about the kick-off the backside man. You've got it. I said he was the target. I did not say that the start. I said he was the threat. Iw系 dde ffredd, iddo gwrdd. But it is not my chance to set your sun up. Never on place to keep his ball away from him. Clit! Never on clit. O ddefnyddiad yma bros. Ddefnyddiad yma. Haiddiw'r graf a it is just right here. Did you know when you were here? Took your game... Tsleprei presents for you, good. Tsleprei di maen nhw yn hasto ni. Because of the cold and all. Leth bach! Deg, e, bandanaws cari yn y grŵin, no? Yeah, so, yeah. We couldn't risk him. Right, cwm o'n pas! Mi'n saith dda, mi'n gwyllus yn parch. Every game of this, you know? Cwm o'n mate, this. I mean, this is a... In all fairness, on paper, this is a hell of a book. Yeah, this is a nostalgia piece. Rogries, Ray Kennedy. Jimmy Case, Cleyon Case. You like to get bookings. Cwm o'n pas, dda hwg. Siap, dei siap, on lineg en i gynnydd. Cwm o'n siap. Cwm o'n siap, cwm o'n siap. Cwm o'n siap, cwm o'n siap, on lineg, on lineg. Cwc o'n siad i ddade. Si'n i nid o ffyddo i'r sgwp. Cwm o'n ffyddo i'r sgwp. This is... Cwm o'n fyddo i'r sgwp. If nothing can inspire us this, this is God's Inspired Us. Cwm o'n fyddaeth arall o'r cityw's stakes out, gofyn what we've learnt in the last three games. Byddai'n un i'r bach arall. Ie dweud do'r cyffredin. Mae gennym yn gwneud. Rwy'n frech cair. Mae'r ydych chi'n mynd arall. Rwy'n credu'r cyffredin. Mae nhw'n credu'r cyffredin? Ebyddi. Mae'n cyfrifio! Rwy'n credu. Fodolwch at andaeth. Mae'n un. Mae'n bach. Mae arall. I think we'll win it. With a different proposition. Well, when we take the lead, then the nerves are released. Come on.  Dengi! Dengi! Dengi! Dengi! Dengi! The wrong button! We're on your own! What do you mean you pressed the wrong button? I don't know it! Come on, pop-up. Oh, pop-up. Oh, pop-up. Oh, pop-up. Well done, Sean. No pressure. Come on, let it go. Slap. Then pass you like. Come on.  Tick-a-tiff, tick-a-tiff. Tick-a-tiff, tick-a-tiff. Tick-a-tiff. Go on, pop-up. Go on, pop-up. Get in the box, get in the box. Mami. Mami. I can't be any more. Go on, Mami. Go on, Mami. Oh! You're having a family again. You haven't gone into the states. Mami. Oh! You stay here. Why hasn't it felt to me? Can we win it? Can't say we're not flying. Mami. Mami. Oh, no. Well done, Dengi.  Dengi knows. This is a dabby knows. There's the flick. Go on! You're in! You're absolutely in! All right. Everton. Everton. Everton. Everton. Oh, ball. Go on. It's Steven Lennacus. Make the run. Go on, Lengs. I'm in the box.  Go on, Shaggy. Put it in there. I've got to get it on the first. I've got to get it on the first. It's keeping it alive, man. I've got to keep it alive. Keep it alive. Cale's right. Look at that! Look at that, you're in! He doesn't want it. He doesn't like it. He's terrified, like Will Greg. Win it, win it. Come on, get it in the box. Great. That's the ball. Come on. Give it to him. We just won't bounce. Go on, minute. Ratties. Come on, give it a ride. Wracliff. What a ball. Oh, my goodness. Men in there. Go on. Attack it. Attack it. Attack it. Attack it. Come on, man. All right. Cybicldabi. Come on. Go on, sheets. Delivery. Are you in there? Oh, what a ball. Everton. Fallon. Fallon. I've got it. Fallon. Don't believe it. Win it. Win it. Well done. Come on. Phil Thompson's having a mare here. He knows he hasn't been able to smell out any danger here. You've got it again, Llynic. Take a breath. Leave going. Get in. Didn't know. Come on. It's still an hour before kick-off. And Greg is here. Come on. So hot in the studio. Celebrated more. Oh, he's fuming. Lloronson is living. At the moment, Gary. Absolutely live with his Lloronson there. Oh, my God. What was Groddola doing? Look at that guy. The pressing, though. The pressing. The pressing. Oh, Groddola. He's a better day. What a finish. Right on hard time. Keep this. Keep this now. What we have. We protect. There's Andy Gray from the bench. Keep it tight. Keep it. These haven't been in this. Keep the shape. And that's where you're going. Let's go. That's the place. So the position. That's like a good place. All rainbow.  The sun. All right. With this play. Have you gone? Have you gone? Have you gone? Have you gone? Have you gone? Steven has left his side. Look at that for the ball. Oh, he's so good. I am coming in now. I'm doing something. He's got a winning. Probably. Of course you didn't do one or the other. FIA. FIA. He's got a pass. The breakfast passed path. Rhaid yn credu! Ac yn ychwandedd o'r ddechrau! Mae fwy yma. Diolch yn選b. Rhaid yn credu os y ddechrau. Rhaid yn credu. Fy nifeddiwch eich sefydlu. Rhaid yn credu. Rydych hayr gyda'r pouvliadau cerdd? Nid ddim ydych fod yn ymddirio. Rhyw gwsdo i'r lefyd. Rhaid yn credu! Rhaid yn credu! Rhaid yn credu! Efo chi. Welddur yr yrwyr o'i hefyd. Rhaid yn credu. Here we go.   Go on. I'm in the back. Do something. Here you go.  Need a deflection. Almost like Easy 7, lay back by 3. Let's keep it simple. And to the left foot, need a tits. Someone just deflected. maw i roi yn eisiau phwrdd miea. Yuw, r破, roi i roi i roi! Felly, rym ni. Saedd i, ond rlyni. Cymru. Cysyllt. Ie. Oedd. Cymru. Nid. Nid. Nid. Nid. Nid. Nid. Nid. Nid. Nid. Cyngor. Mae fan y dyfod. Cyngor. Cymru. Cymru. Eio rhaid, eio rhaid. Cyngor. Cyngor. Eio rhaid. Eio rhaid. Eio rhaid. Eio rhaid. Eio rhaid. Eio rhaid. Rhaid. Eio rhaid. Cyngor. Eio rhaid. Eio. Cyngor, Cyngor. Eio rhaid. Aaaaaaaaah! Bwtych chi i mountus a'r dweud! Aaaaaaah! Aaaaaah! Gw adam arall i tri A's pofynicaid! Come on! Si'n urif fflaidwyr mewn, Lillick enwch's up! Y'r shereit! I'm a smean am eim! I've chased it! Gwad o'r busch it! You haven't set anyone up with yourself on your mind! I got it! Get it in! You picked it into the area. There's the other one! Come on, next locked! C'mon just attack it! It's there to this. Oh Bruce, he went extended bless!  He did! Cmi ond, mae'n tarfiwch chi. Mae'n ffordd iawn. Mae'n gweithio'i ddech chi. Mae'n dfodog, yn ffordd lin. Mae'n ddiwedd yn cael ei archyefydig. O woynau, mae'n gweithio. Cymru yn gyda. Gawr ychwanel. Gawr ychwanel. Mae eich syniad! Eogadryn, fan hyn! Mae'n gweithio. Ydych chi. Fy fyrlo 언�wg All-Fall, both uphold rhinio Then, airref dat yw, whipped in by sheen 하니까 chain Read every one Real goods Champions League Places day San Thorir Portal and Nîm Ddiwyddi'n meddwl, mae'n gweithio felly mae'n meddwl i'w dweud wrth'i ddarluniaeth dreunio painid yn gyfanol. Mae'n dweud nhw'n ddarluniaeth dros eich calwedd ond ac mae'n ddarluniaeth dros eich poeidogel sy'n gefnod gan eich hefyd.bell mewn ddweud o beth o'r unrhyw o'r forbannadau nad oedd yna'r unrhyw o'r unrhoed i'r unrhyw o'r ddweud. Rhyw gwybod nhw'n go iawn i'n ddweud i ddefnyddio ardweud.


I got involved with the Cambridge Museum of Technology back when I was 16, I used to be a row on the river, used to row past the museum and wondered what was going on at the place, intrigued what was going on, and with it being in steam over the last couple of days, come along to help and support and run the boiler for them. The most satisfying part of working on this project is actually physically seeing it back in steam again after all these years. You can feel the heat coming off the boiler, you can smell the hot oil and the grease and that in the engine room, and you can actually feel the heat in the engine room, which is something that hasn't been in there for years. The engine just rocks backwards and forwards, it doesn't do anything other than rotate one way and then the other way, it's not like conventional steam engine that rotates, and it's part of Cambridge's history really. This is the sewage pumping station that used to pump the sewage away from Cambridge, so for it to be back in steam again and showing the public of how it used to pump the sewage away is something that really needs to be seen by the public. To apologise, the safety valve is just lifted.


Anti-Kremlin fighters, the Russian Volunteer Corps, claimed in a video released on June 5, to have taken control of the town of Novyotavlzanka in Russia's Belgorod region. Another date that fighters of the Russian Volunteer Corps are in control of Novyotavlzanka. I want to remind every Russian citizen that this is not an abandoned village, but a place of 5,000 inhabitants. Now, nobody is here except for fighters of the Russian Volunteer Corps, commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps, Denis Kapustin, said in a video broadcast. Reuters was able to confirm the location as Novyotavlzanka from the position of the buildings, road, roof design and hills in the background scene in the video which matched satellite imagery of the area. Reuters was not able to independently confirm the date the video was filmed. Well, friends, the Russian volunteer corps, which control the town of Novyotavlzanka, I want to remind every Russian citizen that this is not an abandoned village, but a village village of 5,000 inhabitants. Now, it is empty, only the fighters of the Russian Volunteer Corps are here. There is no other authorities in this region. Once Mr. Glockov can not control his subordinate territory, we will talk only with his volunteers, who are in Moscow.


Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Doug Swanson, Visitor Services Manager for the National Archives Museum and the producer of the Noontime Lecture Series. On behalf of David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, I'd like to welcome you to the McGowan Theater located in the National Archives building in Washington, D.C. Before we hear from Joseph Reedy on his new book, Illusions of Emancipation, The Pursuit of Freedom and the Equality and the Twilight of Slavery, I'd like to mention some other programs that are going to be taking place in the McGowan Theater. This evening, February 27th at 7 p.m., there will be a documentary screening of Addiction, which discusses the current opioid epidemic, following the film, there will be a panel of experts here to discuss the opioid addictions. Tomorrow evening at 7 p.m., in celebration of Lincoln's birthday, we will present a discussion between historian Harold Holzer and history professor Edna Green Medford as they explore Medford's book, Monument Man, the Life and the Art of Daniel Chester French, who created the statue for the Lincoln Memorial. A book signing will follow that program. Then as a side note, originally the Emancipation Proclamation was supposed to be on display over President's Day weekend, but unfortunately due to the previous government shutdown, we were unable to do so. A new date has been selected, so the Emancipation Proclamation will be on display April 14th through 16th, and the D.C. Emancipation Act will also be on display that same time. To find out more about these, our other programs and our exhibits, please visit our website at www.archives.gov. You will also find some printed materials about upcoming events in the theater lobby, as well as a sign up sheet to receive an electronic version of our monthly calendar. Our topic for today is Illusions of Emancipation, the Pursuit of Freedom and the Equality in the Twilight of Slavery by Joseph P. Reedy. Professor Reedy is an award winning author and historian, an emeritus professor at Howard University, where he taught history and served in various administrative positions from 1984 until his retirement in 2017. After receiving an undergraduate degree in sociology from Villanova University, he earned the master's and doctoral degrees in history from Northern Illinois University. I went to Southern Illinois. Specializing in 19th century United States, from 1977 to 1984, he was an editor with the Friedman and Southern Society Project at the University of Maryland College Park, where he collaborated in producing the first four volumes in the award winning series titled Freedom, A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861 to 1867. He also collaborated in producing three other books focusing on emancipation during the Civil War, one of which, Free at Last, A Documentary History of Slavery, Freedom and the Civil War, was awarded the Lincoln Prize in 1994. Reedy also authored a study of slavery and emancipation in 19th century Georgia, titled From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism in the Cotton Plantation South, Central Georgia, 1800 to 1880. His articles and chapters have appeared in academic journals and collections of essays on the Civil War era. A particular note is his overview of the experience of black sailors in the wartime U.S. Navy titled Black Men in Navy Blue during the Civil War, which appeared in Prologue Quarterly, the Quarterly Magazine of the National Archives and Records Administration in Fall 2001. He has lectured widely on slavery, emancipation in the Civil War, and made radio appearances on National Public Radio and WPFW. His current book, Illusions of Emancipation, synthesizes his many years of research and writing on the demise of slavery during the Civil War. Please join me in welcoming Joseph P. Reedy to the National Archives. Thank you, Mr. Swanson, and good afternoon, everybody. It's my great pleasure to be here. I can't tell you quite how much of a pleasure it is, given the many years that I spent in the research room doing much of the work that you'll see reflected in the book and what I'll be talking about today. And I'm especially grateful to Archivists of the United States, David Ferriero, for making this venue available, essentially, to give birth to this book in its printed form. While standing in the building, I can't help, as I said, reflecting on the years that I spent here, but I also have to mention several people who influenced me greatly during those years. The first is a former military archivist of the old military records here at the National Archives, namely Dr. Sarah Dunlop Jackson, who was responsible for tutoring and, as she said, putting through her finishing school literally generations of historians. And also, I must remember Dr. Ira Berlin, who was, in fact, the editor and founder of the Freedmen and Southern Society Project, on which I worked for seven years, who untimely passed away last summer. And most of all, it's the priceless collections of records here at the National Archives that I really want to celebrate this morning. Many historians had worked with them, but until we, with the Freedmen and Southern Society Project, went through them systematically, only then did we realize what an incredible treasure trove of information about the breakdown of slavery and about the quest for freedom and justice on the part of formerly enslaved and, in fact, freeborn African-Americans. All right, so let's begin with this notion of illusions of emancipation. And I'd like to touch on that concept of illusions several times over the course of my presentation. But what I'm suggesting here is several things. First of all, between 1861 and 1865, the institution of slavery came to an end in the United States of America. Down to 1860, in fact, even beyond that, slavery was one of the founding pillars of American society. But within four short years, it was no more, at least in a legal sense. So what was it that accounted for that remarkably rapid change? And how do we explain it? How do we understand it? What meaning does it have, both for those who experienced it and for later generations? Now, many historians, in fact, from the time of the Civil War, right down to the present, explain the process largely in terms of government actions. And here, I hope I don't give away too much by saying, and specifically, actions on the part of Abraham Lincoln, who, of course, was president of the United States during that time. But it's not just those actions. So part of the notion of illusion has to do with what happens if we look at government action as the key, if not the only explanation for emancipation, when, in fact, the process is more complicated than that. So what I try to do in the book is to explore three concepts, one time, two space, both of which, of course, are kind of standard fare whereby historians try to make sense out of the past. And the third concept is the concept of home. And I'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. But with regard to time and space, I do not consider them to be the straightforward products that we normally think of them, conceptual products, that is. Time, typically, say, for example, in the form of this wristwatch or in the form of a calendar, can have a chronological form. But that doesn't explain all the ways in which time unrolled over the course of the Civil War and how people who were alive at the time experienced time. And let me give you one example of what many Civil War-era individuals described as the revolutionary changes that were swirling all around them. In 1864, this is after the Emancipation Proclamation and after the United States Army began recruiting African-American men, General William T. Sherman, who I'm sure you know by reputation as one of the most effective Union Army generals, was still reluctant to permit African-American soldiers into his fighting forces. Now as it turned out, there was a recruiter operating in the state of Tennessee who was under orders from the War Department to enlist as many African-American men as he possibly could. But General Sherman was very leery about A, letting him recruit within his command, and B, putting those men to work as soldiers. So the comment that this recruiter made was that General Sherman appeared to be two years behind the times. And he says, and these are two of the revolutionary type years, century type years through which we're living. So here is a person who is in the midst of the whirlwind. That was the Civil War, looking at time, both in conventional terms of years, but saying centuries could become compressed into those years. So there's not just something a losery going on here, but there's something extremely complex that we probably need to pay attention to. Now familiar places and spaces had a similar kind of moving composition during the Civil War. So familiar places became unfamiliar, as armies tramped through them as people got displaced. And by the same token, unfamiliar places became familiar. And places as small as a slave cabin, for example, could take on enormous influence and, in fact, importance in the struggle to become free, just as large panoramas could, the entire South, all the territory of the Confederacy. So what I'm saying here is time and space appeared to have shifting characters and not just the fixed ones that we normally associate with them. And this is part of what contributed to this concept of illusion that I work with in the book. So one way in which the persons who were living through all this confusion attempted to make sense out of it was through the concept of home. So they wanted to use home as a way of maintaining their bearings. But keep in mind that this too was a shifting concept. So within the household of enslaved families, for example, the home and the family took on very different connotations as slavery broke down, and then especially as it ended, and a new world, one of freedom, and hopefully one of equality, opened up before them. But by the same token, the concept of home was not confined exclusively to the dwelling house. And in fact, it could arrange as far as the abstract concept of the nation. And many people at the time, as in fact, we do today in the 21st century, speak about the national home, the United States is our home. And of course, a neighborhood could be a home as well. But these two were shifting just as time and space were shifting during this time period. But in any case, through these three concepts, I try to explore what did the breakdown of slavery mean in the lives who were affected by it? And especially, of course, that means persons who were enslaved at the start of the war. But it also means others, including abolitionists, including free African-Americans who were living in the North who had as much a vested interest in the end of slavery as did enslaved African-Americans in the South. All right, so back to Lincoln again and the actions of Congress. That provides a kind of a handy, their actions and those laws that were passed during the Civil War provide a kind of a handy timeline. And often we think of not just Civil War history, but in fact, national history in this timeline sense, that we assume that events happen in sequence, a temporal sequence from then to now, from now into the future, and that certain of these events are noteworthy, whether we call it an emancipation, proclamation, or 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. So these are fixed events that can be plotted on a timeline. But timelines do not tell all. Obviously, in light of the remarks I made a few minutes ago about the different stakeholders in the process of emancipation, there were different timelines. So Lincoln's timeline didn't necessarily apply to enslaved people who were attempting to become free. I mean, it was there, it was a reference point, but that might not have been the preoccupation of their time from minute to minute and from day to day. So timelines don't quite get us there. So part of what I'm trying to do is come up with an alternative framework that can get us away from this notion of a timeline from then to now, from now into the future. And in fact, often timelines as depicted in United States history have an implicit understanding that things get better over time. So what I would also like to suggest is not only do they not occur in this sort of straight line linear fashion, but things are not always getting better. All right, so some of you may recall having seen in the New York Times last fall, this op-ed piece by a philosopher by the name of Crispin Sartwell. How would you draw history? So this is kind of what I was just describing. So these are various ways in which not just philosophers like Sartwell or historians have attempted to describe the passage of time. So to the left you've got the linear version of the timeline. There couldn't be some sort of a circular version. Perhaps the best representation of which would be cyclical, perhaps seasonal patterns in time. So fall occurs at a predictable time each year. So things do kind of circle back around on each other. And then another option is this loop theory where things, they move kind of forward implicitly but they're getting better at times. They're getting not so better at others. And I won't read the fine print there but you can go back to the original and find how on the top certain things are labeled as presumably better whereas at the bottom there labeled as not so better. But in any case, even these timelines don't fully comprehend how human action affects this motion. So this is part of what the challenge is too. All right so here's another way to depict this. Not so much in terms of timeline but in terms of the actors who are performing the acts that generate the passage of time and the noteworthy events in it that we wish to commemorate. This as you know is a statue that resides about 10 blocks away from where we stand. When it was unveiled in 1876 the featured speaker was Frederick Douglass and despite the fact that President Grant was also there and many other luminaries and Frederick Douglass had to in effect cast his remarks in terms that would have national significance and not just significance for him as a former slave. He did point out that this didn't quite capture the full reality and even to the extent that it did he suggested that it might indicate that Lincoln was the white man's president more so than the black man's president. And he did this to some extent to be contrary to some small degree but he really wanted to get the attention focused on the man who is kneeling there in the statue. As it turns out this was a replica of an actual man who had escaped from slavery in Missouri during the Civil War, a man by the name of Archer Alexander. Now there was a report in the paper last spring indicating that genealogists have discovered that in fact Muhammad Ali is a direct descendant of the real life Archer Alexander. Alexander was his great great grandfather. But the point here simply is that in one view not just of the timeline but of emancipation it's Lincoln who is doing the acting and Archer Alexander and perhaps in the Q and A we could talk a bit about their respective clothing and what that might have represented. He is being freed. So action is being taken by Lincoln and perhaps all the members of Congress that affect his life. And Douglas was suggesting that actions that Alexander took affected his life and this statute doesn't capture any of that whatsoever. Now in 1940 the renowned Howard University historian Charles H. Westley also commented on this statue and he suggested that it's a total misrepresentation and he said, again keep in mind this is 1940 this is totally out of keeping with the way that we tell African-American history with African-Americans as actors and not as persons being acted upon. So it's part of that notion of this human action that I also want to take into account. Now there's another very famous statue as well and this is courtesy of the Howard University Gallery of Art which in fact is the custodian of the statue. This one was created by Edmonia Lewis who was an African-American sculptor who had the same idea as Thomas Ball who created the one previous to this using some of the same kind of classical images but note here Lincoln is not anywhere in the picture. So from the standpoint of Edmonia Lewis freedom emancipation was entirely an African-American concern and the point she was making is that African-American men and women broke their chains. They stood up, they became free and again to reinforce the concept of home and family she's got a man and a woman in the picture suggesting that the future of freedom really depended to a large extent on the future of that home and that family. Now let's take a look at this to shift the attention away from strictly timeline to add the element of space as well. Now this is a kind of a standard representation in fact you can find representation similar to this in the newspaper today for example about the division of controlled areas in the country of Syria for example with the shifting lines between the Islamic State and between the Syrian forces and so on and so forth. So this idea is not new and what it does is combine the notion of what happened over time and then what happened in space. So in 1861 the United States controlled only a few places along the coast of what were the Confederate States of America but then in 1862 as US forces began to move southward then this area came under US control. 1863 it expanded still farther to this area here more to the interior and these horizontal lines represent what happened in 1864 in terms of the advancement of union forces and control. All of which looks very neat and simple the fact however is that reality on the ground didn't reflect this at all. For one thing this doesn't take into account how lines were blurred so it looked very neat here on the map in terms of these lines at the end of the year at best as a snapshot at the end of the year but picture how that would have looked on the ground. Where does that line fall? So does that mean union authority is solid on one side and Confederate authority is solid on the other no not really in fact not at all. The lines were blurred and so the actions of people both in time and in space are completely unrepresented or misrepresented by this kind of map. And in case any of you are still doubting it this large swath right here is supposed to represent Sherman's march from Atlanta to Savannah which occurred late in 1864 November and December of 1864. But keep in mind that when Sherman's army made that march they moved to Savannah they didn't occupy this area here at all. In fact from there then they started to move into South Carolina. So that completely misrepresents areas under union control at that time. In fact the staggering thing is that at the end of the war when Robert E. Lee surrendered so much of the original Confederate territory was still under Confederate control. And probably 2.6 out of 3.5 of the enslaved African-Americans in Confederate territory were still being held as slaves at the end of the war. About 80% of the original antebellum total. So again I'm suggesting that casual depictions of time either in simple terms of a straight line linear formation or casual depictions of space don't really do justice to how confusing and confused much of this was. One thing however I think we can say that if we pull together the notion of home it could not be better depicted than this illustration by Thomas Nast. And although this version of it was printed in 1865 the original version dates from 1863. And to do this very quickly I would like to suggest two things. First of all he's got an African-American family in a home setting as the centerpiece of emancipation. So it's not just African-Americans who are thinking along these lines but in fact illustrators for Harper's magazine. But the other thing is he's implicitly incorporating the notions of time that I'm talking about. So on the left side of that centerpiece are the depictions of the time of slavery with the whipping post with sales and people working in the cotton fields and so on. And on this side presumably after emancipation there's a church steeple in the background you see the American flag flying over the school. Here's the household with the mother and the children there. They even got the pet dog right there for good measure. And here are the adults who are lining up to be paid for their work. So their work is not being extracted at the tip of the bull whip. So the home is at the center. Slavery things and ways are gone and a great leap is represented. In fact you could say a one time leap from slavery to freedom. With an implicit supposition that under the influence of the church and the school and the wage African-Americans would be able to take their place as free people and perhaps even as citizens within the republic. All right so that what NAS depicted as a reality was one that bore little representation or little semblance to reality in the lives of most people. But what it did suggest however was that under the influence of the United States government both through the laws and through the proclamations and due to the influence of the armed forces of the United States something resembling federally sponsored freedom was possible. So here's an ideal representation of such federally sponsored freedom. This is a place called Friedman's Village and in fact it sits where now the Pentagon building sits. That property before the start of the war was the estate of General Robert E. Lee. And as you know Lee and his family left the premises and the union authorities took it over very early in the war. Among other things over time it became the site of Arlington National Cemetery but by the spring and summer of 1863 this Friedman's Village was also constructed there. Now here is a representation of how federal authorities thought that freedom could work out if it were only properly structured. So Thomas Nast was getting at that as well of a schoolhouse, the church, the payroll office but federal authorities here went a little bit further. So they took again for granted that the home was the center of it. So around the circle here there were 50 dwelling units each containing two dwellings. So two families could live in each of the houses but over here there were buildings where they could go to school so the children could go to school for example there was a church there and there were workshops where the men and women could learn useful trades so blacksmithing, sewing for the women. The idea being that under the superintendency of the federal government sites like this could provide a stepping stone away from everything that Thomas Nast depicted as the evils of slavery into a well-ordered semblance of freedom. And so this is a photograph from Friedman's Village that shows, well leaving apart the side that has the drainage ditch running right down the center of the street which probably would have been uncomfortable during especially rainy seasons but nonetheless you see not just the people in the homes and outside the homes but beginning of a sense of community as well. So implicit in the home obviously was that could be the building block for a new community and a new community would embrace not only formerly enslaved people but again using the home as a building block it could conceivably extend the citizenship at a local level and perhaps national citizenship as well. All right so that's ideally how things could work under federally sponsored movement from slavery to freedom but again on the ground things were not quite as neat as that. Now this again is a photograph depicting enslaved people that are trying to make their way away from slavery under the protection of the United States Army. So this one happens to depict people who are crossing the Rappahannock River in Virginia and typically at this time they would then be ushered on their way to Washington DC often being transferred to transport steamers so they could make their trip by water from the Rappahannock to the Chesapeake Bay and then up to Potomac but not always. So what this suggests is several things the kind of uncertainty of abandoning home and moving into a new world even with federal protection so I want to emphasize the importance of the federal troops around this particular wagon and its inhabitants who were making their way on this perilous journey but nonetheless it was perilous they have all of their belongings packed into the wagon and where the future lay they couldn't quite be sure. Perhaps it might have been a place like Friedman's Village outside of Washington but not necessarily because there were pitfalls that could be fallen along the way and in many cases people undertook that journey without the protection of federal troops so it made that journey all the more dangerous. Confederate guerrillas loved nothing more than to recapture and return to slavery persons who were attempting to become free. But with some federal protection then that path was cleared. So here's a depiction of a slave quarters which in fact was another version of a contraband camp in Helena, Arkansas in 1864. So this one again shows the buildings and shows the people and some sort of a semblance of community. But what I would like to suggest from this photograph is that despite what looks like a sense of permanence by virtue of those dwellings permanence was not generally the case for the residents of the contraband camps. In some cases federal authorities wanted to move them through the camps and get them off working on their own and use the camps themselves only for those who were most recently coming away from enslavement. So that meant for turnover within there and certain challenge to the development of a sense of community. But even more important in the Mississippi Valley in particular when federal forces were called away and could no longer provide protection for the contraband camps. For example, which happened routinely especially during the Vicksburg campaign of the summer of 1863. That left the camps and their residents vulnerable to confederate attack. And there are dozens if not hundreds of stories of such camps having been broken up by confederates with many people killed, others re-enslaved and hauled back to the place where they thought they had gotten away from. And so this next slide depicts that. So this is called the Stampede of Slaves from Hampton to Fortress Monroe and it depicts a time during the summer of 1861 where federal forces had to pull back from Hampton which they had first occupied as an outpost to their fortress at Monroe and then had to abandon in the aftermath of the Battle of Bull Run. And several thousand African-Americans who had taken refuge there in Hampton under the protection of the United States Army then found that protection disappeared. So they left quickly overnight and made their way in what this artist depicted as a stampede to go to Fortress Monroe for protection there. So what I'm suggesting here is contrary to what Thomas Nast was suggesting, slavery done, emancipation, new life didn't necessarily work in that straight line fashion and it certainly didn't work in one leap. And so some of those persons who managed to escape from slavery could not count on remaining free. And some of them in fact found their, shall we say their timeline heading in that circular fashion. It wasn't linear from slavery to freedom. It was back into slavery again. All right, here's another vivid example in fact taken from the very archives of this building that we stay in. A very famous photograph of Private Hubbard Pryor of the 44th US Colored Infantry. So again, this is playing on that same notion of before and after he arrives in the Union Army camp clad in rags and it becomes enlisted into the United States Army and he puts on the uniform of the United States soldier. So the before obviously the slavery that's left behind and in one great leap that man who was frightened who was probably hungry, ill clad becomes this gentleman here. And you may remember the famous phrase by Frederick Douglass of the effect of putting the army on an African-American man. And he said, once let a black man get upon his person the brass letter US, let him get an eagle on his button and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket there is no power on earth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship. So Hubbard Pryor there in the US Army uniform I'm sure would have subscribed to Frederick Douglass's notion that he was transformed from property into a man and a man wearing the US Army uniform at that. However, Hubbard Pryor's revolution went backward. He and many men in his regiment were captured in the Confederate assault on Dalton, Georgia in October of 1864. Many of his comrades who were captured in fact were murdered by the Confederates but he and others were re-enslaved essentially to build Confederate railroads. So his voyage from slavery to freedom to emancipation and even under the auspices of the United States Army went back to his serving as a slave of the Confederates. And so he remained until the end of the war and then they walked away and so he walked away but then he had to try to make his way across hostile territory to get home. There are stories of captured African-American soldiers who remained enslaved into the summer of 1865, three and four months after the end of the war. So as much as Frederick Douglass captured at a critical component of African-American military service, he couldn't quite anticipate how the vagaries of the war itself might turn some people's emancipations backward and have them going back into slavery. All right, this is also a very famous document from this building and I'll just spend a minute or two talking about that because I want to get on to another story and talk about that in a little bit more detail. This is a letter from a Missouri African-American soldier named Spotswood Rice that he wrote to his daughters, Marianne and Cora in the fall of 1864. He also wrote a letter to the owner of his daughter, Mary. So this was a woman named Kitty Diggs and Kitty Diggs owned Mary and her brother F.W. Diggs owned Cora and they lived in Glasgow, Missouri. Now the reason that Spotswood Rice was writing to both Kitty Diggs and to his daughters was that he was in a hospital in St. Louis. He had already enlisted in the army but he had contracted rheumatism and he was recuperating there and performing light duty there. And in the confines of that hospital where he had time on his hands and where he had paper that he could write on, he was already literate before he enlisted. He was a tobacco roller in Missouri and he was both literate and served as a foreman on the plantation. He was able to write these letters. He writes to Kitty Diggs telling you, Ms. Kitty, I want to have my children be with me. You refuse to let my daughter go. So here's what I'm gonna do. I've got about a thousand friends who are wearing the uniform of the United States Army with me here in St. Louis. And we intend to march up to Glasgow and woe to you and all the other slaveholders when we arrive there.  So this would have been unheard of in any other setting except this. And he closes his letter to Kitty Diggs by saying, this whole government gives cheer to me and you cannot help yourself. He would have been hung, if not executed more rapidly than that, had that letter arrived or had he had the time and the composure to send it before the war. Yet here he was at this time writing that letter. And his letter to his children essentially says the same thing, basically that I wrote to Kitty Diggs telling her I'm coming to get you. I will be there, wait for me, I love you. We hope to rejoin the family very quickly. Now the reason that we know about this letter is that F.W. Diggs who owned Cora was the postmaster of the post office in Glasgow, Missouri. So it's not hard to imagine what went through his mind when he saw this handwriting addressing a letter to his sister Kitty Diggs and no doubt he opened the letter and then he saw what the contents of it were. So he sent it to the commander of the department of the Missouri at the time and that's how these letters survive in the military records here at the National Archives. Now there's much more to say about that obviously but as I said I don't wanna dwell too much on it now and perhaps we can come back to it during the question and answer. But this is a piece that I want to talk about especially this morning as a way of suggesting the complications that attended emancipation every step of the way and complications that to some extent can be understood a little bit better by looking critically at these notions of time and space and home. All right, what you see there obviously is the corner of a typical map of Washington, D.C. and there were hundreds, not thousands of these things produced during the 19th century. This one dates from 1862. Now I lopped off this right corner here for a particular reason. Right about there, close to the border between Washington County District of Columbia and Prince George's County, Maryland, a farm owner by the name of Alexander McCormick kept a farm on which he had six enslaved people and several other hired people. And he had a farmhouse that probably was several hundred yards inside the District of Columbia line in Washington County. All right, so that's the setting. He'd had that farmhouse for years and slave people had been working there in some cases for generations. When the Emancipation Act of April 16th, 1862 freed the slaves in the District of Columbia, it didn't end slavery right away. There was a provision in that act for compensation to the owners of slaves who could produce papers indicating that they were so-called legitimate owners up to $300. But that meant a process whereby the owners would submit the papers and then a body of commissioners would evaluate the authenticity and then make a decision whether or not the claimed owner was entitled to compensation. So the law gave the owners 90 days to submit that paperwork. So that's from mid-April to mid-July they had to submit the paperwork. So what we think of normally as something that happened overnight or immediately on the day of April 16th didn't happen that way at all. In the best case it took weeks, in some cases three months for the owner to submit the paperwork and then for all of the examination to occur and then finally for the certificates of freedom to be issued to the freed people. But guess what, over the 90 days not all of the owners submitted such claims. So Congress passed a supplemental act on July 12th, 1862 permitting the recipients of freedom namely the enslaved African-Americans to submit petitions on their own behalf.  Mercifully Congress permits people to make their own case. So these cases begin coming into the commissioners beginning in July of 1862. And there were hundreds of them. And many people advocated on their own behalf. The law permitted them to testify on their own behalf. They brought neighbors, they brought friends, they brought attorneys, they brought others to make the case. So Alexander McCormick, excuse me was pretty much smug and assuming that the enslaved people who belonged to him were going to remain with him. And he did not submit the papers asking for compensation. And he kind of blandly assumed that they would not submit papers asking for their freedom. Well, as it turned out, he was wrong as he found out over the next several months. To make the long story short, he decided that in fact the people who were living the enslaved people who were living with him there were not entitled to freedom. And he had two reasons for this. Number one, his property straddled the Maryland line. So he was assuming he could make a case, they lived and worked in Maryland, therefore they were not eligible. But secondly, he presumed that the law was unconstitutional and would be declared unconstitutional by the courts. So he wasn't gonna do anything to cooperate with it. But by the fall of 1862, the protagonist of this part of the story, one of his slaves, a woman named Emeline Wedge and her sister, Alice Thomas, and Emeline Wedge's two children submitted a petition for their own recognition as free people. And so then that opened an investigation into it. And what's more, Emeline Wedge and her sister, Alice Thomas, had a mother, Mary Thomas, who also lived there on the property, and Mary Thomas submitted a paper of her own and it was recognized and Alexander McCormick didn't challenge that. However, when Emeline Wedge and Alice Thomas submitted their petitions, he decided to challenge it. So testimony went on for weeks and weeks and weeks and the story went something like this. Despite the fact that they lived there, he built a new house for the enslaved people on the Maryland side of the lawn. But knowing that the law said they needed to have lived and worked in the district, he figured, all right, well, I've got them living in Maryland now. And apparently this was some ramshackle structure that he just cobbled together and he expected the women and the children to live in it. But he had to figure out a way to get them to work in Maryland too. So he must have been quite the imaginative fellow. So he hired a free black woman in effect to walk the cattle who lived in a pen or who spent the nights in a pen by the farmhouse in the district, walked them to the district line and then hand them over to Emeline Wedge and Alice Thomas so Emeline and Alice could mine them in a pasture in Maryland during the day. And then at night they would reverse the same deal. So Emeline and Alice would walk the cattle to the district line, hand them over to the free black woman who would then herd them back into the pen. Sound pretty crazy, didn't it? What's more, it couldn't work that way because the farm was one that had been functioning for years with people on both sides of the district line and the Maryland line and the young ladies in fact continued to work that way. So eventually they were able to convince the commissioners on December 30th, 1862, that they were entitled to their freedom. So picture this timeline. April 16th, the Emancipation Law becomes effective. The buds of the springtime, which is beginning to show, nothing happens through the rest of the springtime because McCormick had until mid-July to eat and submit papers. Mid-summer comes, the crops are coming mature, they're starting to harvest the crops, they're going back to the farmhouse and they're shelling beans with McCormick's wife. Then the fall comes and the leaves begin to change colors. They're still enslaved, six months after the law takes effect but they have the option to submit the petition, which they do. And then it takes several months for that petition process to work its way through. So from beginning to end, it's an entire agricultural season. By December 30th, there wasn't a living thing left on the farm. So what we think of in a chronological timeline as an action that happened on April 16th, in fact, took the better part of eight months to play out in the lives of those who were affected by it. So no simple timeline can tell that story and that's part of what I'm trying to get at in this book. Now we can talk a bit more about this in the question and answer period too because this is apart from being a beautiful picture, kind of gets at some of the illusions that I was talking about. So the picture does correctly portray the kind of rocky road to freedom that many enslaved people had to walk along to escape. And the sense of uncertainty obviously is well depicted as well. But take a look at this. From here down into the distance, the road seems to straighten out a bit and they don't appear to be the rocks and whatnot along the way. And though you cannot see it very well, this is a US flag back there in the distance and what's the outline of a US military outpost. So Theodore Kaufman who was a very famous 19th century artist, depicted this kind of rocky road to freedom which nonetheless then smoothed out a bit. And hopefully the destination would be the outpost of the federal forces where the US flag and military force would help to protect freedom. But as I think you've gotten from what I've said before, the rocky road didn't end there and there were a lot of pitfalls along the way. In fact, even after those would have arrived there at the federal outpost under the US flag. So freedom retained this kind of illusory character right through the war and in fact after. So I'd like to simply close by saying the work of transforming illusions of emancipation into real life freedom and equality remains to be done. More than 150 years after the end of the Civil War. Thank you very much for your attention. So let's have some questions. If you don't mind stepping to the aisles, there are microphones there so we can record your questions as well. I was curious, how many people in here have read Slavery by Another Name? If you haven't read Slavery by Another Name, please read it. It's a Pulitzer Prize winning book and it's about how slavery existed in America on up into the 20th century. And there are multi, multi, multi layers of how it was done in the mines, in the agricultural farms all throughout the South. Every state in the South had slavery on up until to some form peonage up until the early 20th century. And the saddest thing was is that the North did basically nothing. Teddy Roosevelt, we sent down investigators and we had trials and everything, but we pretty much were afraid of getting involved in the Southern way of doing things. And the Supreme Court law, which was passed in 1883, allowed this to happen. Basically the Southerners went before the courts and they justified basically their degree of slavery through the law and everybody was involved in it, the justices of the peace, the sheriffs. So my question is, I mean, slavery existed on up until the early 20th century and part of it is, I think all of our faults because some part of the slavery occurred quite a bit of occurred in Alabama which was the number world's producer of iron ore. So we all used it. So my question is in your great research of slavery in America and how have you investigated how the South used the 1883 Supreme Court ruling justifying enslaved peonage of hundreds of thousands of African-Americans who were illiterate, who didn't know what they, unfortunately, they weren't allowed to be well educated and that's how they were involved and put in situations where they were basically were situations in slavery practically because they were brutally, brutally, brutally, brutally treated. And I think that's something that you can talk about. I'm not gonna deal with the peonage part in part because we've got an expert on that subject in the house here and the person of Pete Daniel who wrote the definitive study of that some years ago so perhaps you could talk with him afterward about that but in response to your more general question though I think part of this lies in that timeline that I referenced from the very beginning that looks essentially at the actions of either President Lincoln or of Congress, many of those actions of which are laws or amendments to the Constitution. Please remember that the 13th amendment which abolished slavery said simply that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude is permissible in the United States. It didn't say what freedom consisted of at all and so part of what I was getting at earlier is that the official actions may say certain things. It banned slavery so no longer could human beings be bought and sold but it said nothing about discrimination. It said nothing about those who were convicted for crimes for which they were found guilty. Well I'm not gonna get into arguments about individual cases but the 13th amendment does permit involuntary servitude for persons who are convicted of crimes and so that was the loophole in effect that remains alive today. So activists today are reexamining the 13th amendment for exactly that implication in terms of what's practically the enslaved laborer of persons who are held in custody. Now another piece to this I just want to add that I think will help to illuminate this. I'm sure you're all familiar with the name of Brian Stevenson who's the director of the Equal Justice Initiative and he's the moving spirit behind the Memorial for Peace and Justice and the Legacy Museum that opened last year in Montgomery, Alabama. Here's what he said about the 13th amendment recently in the New York Times Magazine. When you look at the 13th amendment which talks about ending forced labor it says nothing about ending this narrative of racial differences. Slavery didn't end in 1865, it just evolved. So if we take that as an accurate description of what's happened since 1865 I think it provides a starting point for addressing your question, maybe not answering it but at least getting into it. Yes, ma'am. Yes, thank you for your presentation. My question is in your overall presentation you cited Frederick Douglass several times. With regards to the statue of Lincoln and the kneeling enslaved man can you speak to the backstory or what does your research tell you about the backstory about that statue? Because as I understand there was another minister in the community who was, or there was a community effort and a lot of debate over what this statue would look like. Several formerly enslaved peoples had donated money, some of their earnings to the erection and to the cost of this statue. And I think that in many cases those people go sort of unnamed in these larger narratives but they in fact really underscore how they were actors and agents and involved in sort of battling for artistic images that would represent post emancipation as well as, and there were all other types of actions and community events that happened around this particular piece of public art. Yes, there is quite a backstory. You are aware as your question suggested that it was largely donations made by African-Americans that financed the construction of this statue. Now those donations worked their way to a committee of folk who commissioned Thomas Ball to construct this statue to make the clay model and then to cast it. Thomas Ball claimed that he made a roughed version of this in plaster soon after Lincoln's assassination. So in his mind that was the event that he was commemorating. But as time came closer to the unveiling of the statue and person saw some of what the studies were that upon which he was gonna base the actual cast, there was a man by the name of Elliot from Missouri who was very critically involved in that planning process. He knew Archer Alexander, in fact, he had helped Alexander become free during the Civil War. So he persuaded Ball to use the likeness of Alexander. So his face and his physique is essentially that of Alexander. And he insisted that Ball have Alexander at least appearing to be rising. So in some of the earlier studies Ball was more suppliant I guess is the word and a supplicant sort of posture. So they managed to convince Ball to have Alexander rising as though he's standing up toward freedom. But nonetheless, the African Americans who contributed to financing the statue had very little direct influence in either the composition of it, certainly not stylistic elements for example, the clothing on Alexander as compared to the clothing on Lincoln. So there was not that sort of input into the finished product that certainly they would have liked. Okay, but the plaque on the monument does recognize the fact that the contributions of African Americans made the statue possible. Well, I'll have to go see it. I actually haven't seen it in person and now I'm encouraged. Yes sir. My question is about the status of the emancipated or manumitted slave. Anciently in Greece, once a slave was freed he was not generally permitted to become a citizen. Anciently in Rome, a freed slave became a citizen but the freed slaves' rights were limited or defined by particular statuettes. The American situation of slavery was based off these ancient models, right? And their diminishing status was the greatest. Diminishio Maximus, I think is what it's called in the 12 Tables. But the purpose for emancipating or manumitting the slave was never to allow them to become a citizen of the country. In a court case, Brian versus Walton, they talk about the status of the manumitted. And what happens is you become not a slave but not a citizen in this middle position, medic or libertas. And so it seems like in America they base their emancipation off the ancient, right? In America, the freed slaves have the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. These are statuettes that are supposed to be, you know, resemble what the rights or the constitutional rights for these particular people. And so what I'm starting to understand in my research of history is that freedom, this brand of freedom may be worse than slavery. The last sentence in the brand versus Walton, he says, one thing I'm quite certain is that whether freedom in Africa be a reality for the colored man and his children or not. In the United States, whether slaveholding or non-slaveholding, it is worse than slavery itself.  And so I would like you to speak to what is the status of the emancipated? Is it citizenship? And is these reconstruction amendments really a con to present America as a different country than a slaveholding country? Like we got rid of slavery through the 13th when really we just changed the word from slavery to prisoner. The 14th was supposed to give everybody citizenship, but yet we don't live in that country. Immediately after the 14th Amendment, we had the black codes and Jim Crow, which are new laws for a different status of people when you already had laws for the citizens, your comments. Okay, I mean, that's the question of the 21st century, I think. And it's one that I'm trying to wrestle with throughout the book as indeed were the people who lived through the experience that I'm describing. There was no guarantee of citizenship as packaged together with freedom. And even in terms that I quoted the 13th Amendment, all it does is say slavery is not permitted. It doesn't say that the formerly enslaved people will be citizens. It doesn't say that they'll be anything, right? So that's one of the drawbacks of looking at that kind of linear chronology that depends upon presidential actions and laws of Congress, because it doesn't get at the complexity of the matter, nor does it help to resolve some of the issues that you're raising. I would say this though, remember what Doug was said about the soldier who had the US on his buckle? He would fight for citizenship, and indeed that's what happened. And Northern African Americans had a recollection of what they termed gradual emancipation that had occurred earlier in the 19th century before the start of the Civil War, which did not produce citizenship for them. And so those who looked back on that history and who either enlisted in the Army or wrote letters to congressmen or wrote letters to their local newspaper or became active in raising funds to help relieve some of the suffering or the contraband, they insisted all along that the end of slavery had to bring full citizenship to African Americans. But it didn't happen then, and as you're suggesting, it's still not complete today. So that's a process that we're still living through as a nation and in fact as a world. And so think again in terms of timelines, it's not a linear march from slavery to freedom and full citizenship. It's perhaps looping back in some respects, but it remains one of, it remains an issue of constant vigilance, doesn't it? And each generation has to commit itself once again to struggling for what we and our sacred documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution describe as a republic made up of equal citizens. So work is still to be done. Okay, thank you very much, everybody. It's been a pleasure.


It's an election year out there, folks, and while we mostly stick to economics here at the Mises Institute, it's getting awfully hard to ignore all the political campaign rhetoric and political news swirling around out there. Recently I had a conversation with Tom Woods where we both lamented the fact that Murray Rothbard is no longer around and alive to give us his play by play on Trump and Bernie and Hillary. But what I'd like to talk about this weekend is the left, a.k.a. progressives and how libertarians often fail to understand and thus properly engage with the left. And before you accuse me of bias, please understand that next weekend we are going to have a very similar show entitled The Trouble with Conservatives. So if you're interested in progressivism and social justice warriorism and how we should be counteracting both, stay tuned. Welcome back to Mises Weekends. I'm your host Jeff Deist. As I mentioned during the introduction, we are talking this weekend about the trouble with progressives. And of course, next weekend we are going to do the same thing and examine our conservative friends. But there's a lot going on with progressives today. We have this fight between Bernie and Hillary. And I'd like to just set the stage by bringing up a couple of recent events. You may have noticed that just a couple of evenings ago there was a big Trump rally in Salt Lake City where there was quite a bit of violence. And while I don't think Trump really represents the right per se, I do think that the protesters and the bomb throwers, so to speak, do represent the modern left very vividly. So there were some rocks and bottles and tomatoes thrown, some eggs thrown at one woman apparently, some arrests made. But perhaps the biggest news item to come out of it was that the Salt Lake City mayor, who is apparently a Hillary Clinton supporter, said, well, gee whiz, Trump has to expect this sort of thing at his events given his rhetoric. So that seemed like a tacit endorsement of this. And to my knowledge, we haven't heard anything in particular from the Bernie and Hillary camps on this violence. And it's brought up some questions about whether this plays into Trump's hands, right? Is this something akin to the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago where there were big riots that were televised and this all awakened a slumbering giant in the American electorate who went out and elected by a wide margin the law and order Nixon and actually swept him into office for two consecutive terms because they were so turned off by these violent left wing protests. I'm not entirely sure that that analysis holds up simply because America's changed so much since then. When Romney said in 2012, his infamous gaffe, i.e. when a politician inadvertently tells the truth, he said, you have to understand something like 47 percent of the country are direct beneficiaries of all these government programs. He was entirely right. And, you know, not just the demographic shifts since 1968, but also the entitlement and welfare landscape has shifted so dramatically since then. And I'm not convinced that there's this bourgeois cohort out there that is going to watch these protesters and be so antagonized by this that they go out and vote for Trump. I'm just not sure that there's enough of those people left in America.  So I really think these two events typify the modern left, identity, politics, Trump, everything, all political and news matters really. In fact, all human affairs have to be viewed through these filters, through these lenses of history and racism and colonialism and classism and genderism and, you know, Republicans or conservatives or right-wingers are almost evil by definition. And that's really where the modern left is. It has gone, gotten away from your grandfather's democratic party, which concerned itself with trade and labor issues and was concerned with civil liberties and was definitely concerned with the First Amendment speech rights. Modern progressives, modern liberals are really quite totalitarian outlook. They're not at all concerned with free speech.  So it really is a different landscape than in 1968 today. So what does all this have to do with libertarianism? I'd just like to make the case that too many libertarians remain naive and deluded about progressivism in my opinion and who's behind it and what it really seeks in America. You know, this dovetails with the recent libertarian party convention. Tom Woods has already discussed this at length, some of the deficiencies and infirmities of the Johnson-Weldt ticket. I'm not really that interested in who the libertarian party chooses as its nominee in any given election. And I completely understand people who say, look, I'm not necessarily voting for Gary Johnson, but I'm voting for a third party that has libertarian in its name, and I want that third party to upset the apple cart by getting five or 10 or 15 percent of the popular vote because we need to do something about this terrible two-party duopoly and that this is no time to be overly purist. And I get that argument. I don't necessarily accept it, but I certainly understand it and I have no trouble with it. But I do think that there's a couple important takeaways from last weekend's libertarian party convention. I wrote a blog piece on it. We can link to it in case you'd like to read it. But first and foremost is that the libertarian party has sort of rooted out any place for social conservatives or religious folks because they've taken stances on social issues. We're in the past. The libertarian party often counseled neutrality because libertarianism, per se, has nothing to say about one's particular lifestyle. It's just a political philosophy dealing with the use of force and the proper role of government. But this year's LP convention had a decidedly left flavor on social issues, gay marriage, drugs, marijuana, et cetera. So it really seems like there's no place necessarily for disaffected conservatives in the LP. If they're animated, at least by social issues. The second point that I'd just like to make quickly about the LP is that I really think that they missed a chance to offer up a real alternative to the American people, an alternative to organizing society around Washington, D.C. and the federal government. In other words, they just said, well, we'll organize a little differently. They had a chance to offer up a truly populist message, I think, an anti-fed and anti-war pro-succession and pro-local control. And most of all, an anti-D.C. message to people as opposed to just saying, well, we'll take the good parts from the Democrats and the good parts from Republicans and kind of seam it together into this third party. And in that sense, I think that the Libertarian Party missed an opportunity. But the point is that the Libertarian Party has decided that it needs to reach out to progressives. It needs to try to appeal to disaffected Bernieites, let's say, assuming Hillary gets the nomination. But I'm not sure that Libertarians really understand what progressives think and I'm not sure that Libertarians really understand how to talk to progressives. So let's go into a little bit about the progressive mindset and the progressive worldview. And from my perspective, it is almost entirely based on social contract theory. Now that's either implicitly or explicitly in the mind of a particular progressive that you're talking to, but they definitely believe in social contract theory that just by being born and existing here in the geographical confines of the United States that we tacitly accept to live under the rule of the Constitution, which they don't care about. And just because we don't leave that we agree to abide by certain rules and social conventions in the political realm, I don't think that's true. I'm sure most of you have heard the argument of the bully on the playground who says, if you don't like it, why don't you leave? And that's really what the federal government is, is the bully on the playground. But nonetheless, it's important to understand that social contract theory is part and parcel of the progressive worldview and many libertarians are coming at this from a much more individualist perspective. So speaking for myself and many libertarians, we don't believe in social contract theory at all. We feel that Lysander Spooner has completely eviscerated any argument for a constitutionalism, that sort of thing, but that's not necessarily helpful when you're dealing with progressives or trying to reach out to them. So when you accept social contract theory, a lot of things that libertarians hold near and dear, all of a sudden go out the window, right? When you tell a progressive that taxation is theft, well, they're not buying it because they don't really believe in property in the way Mises did. And so they don't really believe that you own your property in the sense that you can use and control it in any way you see fit. They see a greater social contract overlay to all this. So when you say, well, I think taxation is theft, they're viewing that as just an absurd conclusory statement rather than a coherent argument. When Obama says, you've got that small business, but you didn't build that. And a lot of people, a lot of libertarians and people on the right sort of roll their eyes and groan when he says that, that makes perfect sense in the progressive worldview, right? In the progressive mindset is that you didn't build that. That was part of society and your business exists because there are roads and police and fire services and all this sort of thing. I think part and parcel of the progressive worldview along with social contract theory is egalitarianism, right, egalitarianism above all. This is really central to what progressives are all about today. And this is distinctly illiterarian. If you've read Rothbard's great essay on egalitarianism as revolt against nature, you will understand what I'm talking about. But egalitarianism is fundamentally incompatible with liberty. So, you know, libertarians are in a position where it's awfully hard to reach out to people who believe in egalitarianism over all this. And along with egalitarianism is the consequentialist outlook of most progressives, right? When I say consequentialist, I mean that they want to judge policies or ideology based on the real world effects that policy or ideology will produce. This is sort of a utilitarian argument and we've seen throughout history that progressives are more than willing to break a few eggs to make an omelet, so to speak, right? If we have to bomb Hiroshima to end World War II, well, so be it. If we need to take 15% of your paycheck in order to provide transfer payments to a relatively wealthy cohort of senior citizens, so be it, right? That's the great thing about being a progressive is the ends justify the means. But we shouldn't be too arrogant here, right? I mean, there are splits in the libertarian world and in the Austrian economics world over this too. Mises himself argued for a utilitarian approach to justifying laissez-faire to justifying free markets. And Rothbard came along and strongly challenged that and said, no, we need an explicitly normative natural law viewpoint to justify liberty. So there have always been these questions about utilitarianism and consequentialism versus strident natural rights theory. And I think it's safe to say that progressives fall firmly in the former camp or the latter. But here's the interesting thing about this, of course, is that being a progressive means never having to take responsibility for the actual consequences. So even as they say they live in the real world, we know that progressive policies always produce bad results in the real world. And we know that progressives are forever patting themselves on the back based on good intentions. So there's kind of this irony in the progressive outlook that on the one hand, we're consequentialist, but on the other hand, all that matters is good intentions, consequences would be damned. But on this topic of progressivism, I think we have to touch on left libertarianism. And I'm not sure I'm even comfortable with the term. I agree with Walter Block that there's just libertarianism, meaning anti-state libertarianism. There's no such thing as right or left. But nonetheless, there is now an identifiable group of people and an identifiable grouping of literature that we could loosely term left libertarianism. And I think left libertarianism fails for the same reasons progressivism fails. It accepts the wrong premises, and therefore it asks the wrong questions and unfortunately leads most people to the wrong conclusions. Now, what do I mean by that? When libertarians, left or otherwise, try to reach out to the left and say, we're concerned with the same things as you are. We want to create a fairer, more equal society. Well, that's a very dangerous road to go down. The problems that face us in America today, in my opinion, are war and peace, central banking, and state power. In other words, this terrible foreign policy that is engulfed Washington DC, the terrible effects of the Fed and central banks around the world, and the terrible effects of Leviathan states, the snooping, the spying, the regulating, the taxing, those are the three political issues that face us. But left libertarians tend to side with progressives on this, say, no, no, no. The big problems in the world aren't state power, they're corporate power, and global warming, and inequality, and classism, and racism, and sexism, and homophobia, and transgender discrimination. So what Hapa terms Viagra for the state is this accepting the premises and the language of the status, and progressives are certainly status.  Most people are not gonna say, well, okay, tell me how we can get rid of these by getting rid of government, right? Most people are gonna say the opposite. They're gonna say, you're right, these are huge problems and we need the government to fix these things because men aren't angels. So I think when you accept these false premises, you tend to lead people down a status path. And when I say false premises, I mean false. America's not a deeply racist country. It's not a deeply unequal country. We wouldn't want it to be equal. That would be a terrible country. America's not deeply classist or sexist or anything else. These are hobgoblins of the progressive mind and we shouldn't adopt them in the libertarian movement because it leads to a bad end. What we need to adopt is a Misesi and Rothbardian approach to natural law and to property as the fundamental axiom of a free society. So my final point really is that justice and efficiency are not the same thing. Now, they may go together and thankfully they often do go together. And we know that a libertarian society actually produces far better results across the board. It's more fair. It's in many ways more equal. It's certainly richer. But we need to stick to the moral case, the natural law case, the property rights case for liberty because if we don't, we risk providing viagra for the state. We risk becoming social justice warrior light. I think we make a mistake when we do that. I think we make a mistake when we take sides in the culture war. And I think we especially make a mistake when we fail to tie human liberty to property rights. And we have to be honest with ourselves that progressives simply don't believe in property rights. So to wrap this up, if you're interested in my notes and thoughts on the Libertarian Party Convention and progressivism, we will post a link to that. But more importantly, we will post a link to Mises's great 1927 classic entitled liberalism. It's a free PDF or HTML file. I encourage you to take some time this weekend and give it a look because if you do so, you will understand what real liberalism is all about and how distinctly illiberal modern progressives really are. Ladies and gentlemen, thanks and have a great weekend.


Hey, I get a lot of questions from agents. They're like, hey, what's the most important trade, Cody? If I can be successful, I want to learn. And they're devoted. They want it. But I'm telling you what, what I feel like is the most important trait for an insurance sales person. Dude, it probably is confidence. If you believe in yourself, you've got a better chance of doing whatever it's you want to do. If you're sold on you succeeding, you've got a better chance of succeeding. If you're sold on the, if you know the client's going to buy from you because you're that darn good, the client will probably have a better chance of buying from you because you believe it. I ran appointment a few years back and the client said, hey, Cody, we do not share bank account information. We do not give our credit card information out to anybody. Bank account, we've got writing number, account number, checks, nothing. They didn't give it to anyone, not even their electric bill, for 40 years. I told myself, I will sell this client. And they will do bankrupt. Dude, 40 minutes later, they were sold. I was walking out with a check because I believed it would happen. If I didn't believe it would have happened, it would have never happened. You've got to be sold on you. You've got to be sold on your carriers, your products.  Because if you're not sold, if you're not devoted, if you're not driven beyond belief, it will never work. Once you get sold, once you believe that you are the secret to success, the sooner that you will actually be successful. Get sold. Believe in yourself. Gain some freaking comp.