today. we welcome every one of you to our captivating talk with historian and author fergus bordewich. the capital historical society chartered by congress, a

nonprofit organization, is designed to tell the story of the capital and the people who work there in a manner that inspires informed patriotism. today is clearly of that effort. we're going to discuss mr. bordewich s new book clash war ulysses grant and the battle to save reconstruction, which is actually a story not just about president grant, but about the role that congress actually played in all of this activity. because he found the results of one of the very first investigative committees of congress. this multi-volume report part of the investigation on the klu klux klan that went the south and story is told throughout his book, which talks about the bloody reconstruction era roots

and how really influences what's going on today. this story he will tell details how the federal government wields, its power to try to dismiss the klu klux klan, defined as the first organized terrorist movement in american history. that out of the ashes of the civil war at the peak of its, you know, power in the early 19, 1870s. the klan boasted tens of thousands of members. no small of the landowners law enforcement officers, doctors, journalists, churchmen. future governors and congress people to to repel that that boro went through a tidal wave of violence. president grant a two term battle against both the armed southern of reconstruction and.

northern politicians seduced by the visions of postwar reconciliation testing the limits of the federal government in determining the extent of states rights. you will hear from our author how he transports us into that time. fergus bordewich is the author of eight previous books, all nonfiction, including congress at war how james madison, george washington and a group of extraordinary men invented the government and so many more. he's independent historian and has been a writer since the early 1970s. we are so honored to have him here with us today to tell what he learned in his book, to share the story of his book and of the klan war.

and he will be with us for a good set of questions. so you can put your questions in the q&a. but first, we're going to hear from our author, fergus. take it away. certainly, of course, you to the u.s. capitol historical society. one of my absolute favorite organization is in america. and i appreciate your having me there. and hello to everyone who's on this zoom. wherever you may be be, i'm not going to read anything from the book, but i am going to open by reading a very short quote from w.e. dubois, which in sense explains why, i wrote this book, or at least puts what i've done here in context. w.e.b., i don't think needs any

any excellent. he wrote in 1935, in his book black reconstruction, which should be much better known, more widely read than it is, at any rate. this is what he wrote in 1935. one is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea. evil must be forgotten distorted and skimmed over the difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive. an example it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does tell the truth. if he says we are going to use history for our pleasure and amusement for inflating our national ego and giving us a false but pleasurable sense of accomplishment, then we must give up the idea of history. it raises science. or, as an art and what this is

about, what he's saying here is that we can't afford to obscure or or hide or airbrush aspects of our past, even if those aspects are troubling. and that's what happened. the history of reconstruction for 100 years or more. those of you who may have been educated as i was back in the 1950s and 1960s, probably learned very about reconstruction, very about the historical ku klux and next to nothing about the extremely violent terrorism that was perpetrated against black freed people and white republicans by the klan in the late 1860s and early 1870s. so i wrote this book in part i

had several motives, but in part i wanted because i wanted to show that organized terrorism has roots deep in american history. today, when we talk about terrorism, we think of it as something foreign isis, al qaeda or lately hamas. but in fact, it's embedded deeply in american life and history and i deeply troubling about it that history is that it was perpetrated by otherwise respectable, often middle class or even upper class america. there's kind of a myth that the ku klux klan was made up of losers and louts and hooligans. and so but in fact, it was largely founded and led by educated at its six founders, royal college graduates in tennessee. 1866 and its leaders almost

everywhere. as jane said, her introduction were professional people, landowners, doctors, sometimes churchmen, journalists and so on. they were community leaders, which makes what they perpetrated all the more disturbing. they can't be written off by dismissing the the kind of people who who made up the klan. so. i'm going to talk about a couple of things here. i'm going to talk about what the klan was, the klan of the 1870s, and then i'll talk about how the federal government coped with it and in which, yes, as jane said, congress as well as president grant played a pivotal roles. so insofar we think of the ku klux klan today, it's most often i think the klan of the 20th century. many of us remember it's more

recent. ascendancy in the 19 oh sixties and so on, in reaction to the civil rights movement. the original ku klux klan was founded, as i said, in 1866, and a small city a large town, pulaski, tennessee, which is south of nashville, was founded by a group of confederate war veterans, young men who were bored and and fishing around for something interesting to do. so they created this what was at the beginning a kind of local fraternity that dressed up in weird costumes and popped up in odd places, town and among their other entertainments, which is how they saw it, was to scare local black people. what's going on what's the context of the time? this is early reconstruction, just after the end of the civil

war, freed people nearly 4 million freed people are for the first time able to assert themselves as americans. if not wholly, yet as citizens. that comes a little bit later, but as at least free individuals. an end, you have to think of what's taking place in the south as a racial revolution that's going to change social, political relations across the south. that revolution provokes, a reaction, a violent reaction, that reaction is spearheaded by the ku klux klan. so this this rather small group and polaski, by the way, they call themselves the ku klux klan. why? they were they were experimenting with different oddball names. it doesn't mean anything. it has no secret at meaning at all. although the klan was very

secretive in its organization, the name meant nothing was meant to sound a bit weird and spooky. and it is. they tried other names which were less catchy. it fell by the wayside. a few months later, a a group of former former high ranking confederate officers meeting in nashville recognizing the spread of this weird organizing. not far away around and adjoining counties set out to transform the klan specifically into a terrorist and political organization. the for the most part across the south as it as it very rapidly expanded became the paramilitary arm of the southern democratic party, the reactionary party of its time, the party bent on destroying, subverting, reconstruct and preventing a

free now free black americans from participating in public life. its political was the destruction of an embryonic two party system in the south. the republic and party is brand new. it's bi racial. virtually all freed people once they can participate in politics become republicans. they're joined at the beginning by a significant number of white southerners who were demeaned. as time goes by with this term scalawags, which is an insult of course, but white republicans spend quite a wide range. they're often victims of the klan, too. so it's important to realize that the klan's primary goal was political to destroy this embryonic republican party. as well as to scare free black

people out of public life. i'm. so at any rate, the klan. very quickly in 1867, 68, 69. how did that happen? well. the klan recruited at the beginning, nathan bedford forrest, those of you who know civil war history will recognize his name. he was a an extremely wealthy pre-war slave trader based in memphis. he made fortune buying and selling human beings. he served as a general in the confederate army during the war, a very talented cavalry commander, very talented commander who. led his cavalry, often as a kind of guerrilla force behind union lines. and that's signify in the way

that the klan in the tactics the klan adopted later on. and bedford forest was also a criminal. he presided the massacre of a black union garrison in 1864 at fort pillow in tennessee. he was he originally boasted about. then when it was clearly became was so shocking that it was bad publicity even for the. he backed off and, denied it and after the war he was he had he had military charisma, let's say military charisma. he was recruited by the founders of the klan to become first grand wizard and in that role. but traveling more or less undercover, he traveled around the south, helping set up dens. klan as they were called, usually ten, ten, 20, 30 people to a group.

one county might have many clans. they met metastasized. they, as they said, spread very quickly wherever dens popped up. violence soon followed. the violence perpetrated by the klan was often savage. it involved, at a minimum, the intimidation of black free people and white republicans. floggings, stabbings, beatings, shootings, rapes, abuse of women and children. sometimes truly barbaric tortures, which i'm not going to describe here. i try not to dwell beyond the necessary amount on this in book, but it needs to be clear what was perpetrated and why the klan was terrifying as it was, and what terrorism really was like in the hamlets and towns of the south.

so that's that's how the klan came to be. and i want to say at this point, the klan was not a continuous organization. there were three clans. there was the klan i'm talking about of the 1860s and 70 is the klan was crushed by ulysses grant and the federal government in the early 1870s? the klan is reinvented in the 20th century. it's probably the only terrorist movement inspired by a movie or famous film. birth of a nation and the klan therefore developed in the 19 tens. first in the 1920s, and faded at the end of that decade, because internal corruption and was then really essentially re founded after war two in reaction to the civil rights movement. so we have to think of three clans not a continue with organization obviously the

second and third clans based their their their style paraphernalia and and their their tactics on the first clan. but this is what we're talking about here is is the is the mother clan, so to speak. so how many members did the clan have? it's unknown that that is unknowable, except that membership in counties, many counties is document able had been more than 50% in 64, and 70% of the white male population. total number, probably couple of hundred thousand. the klan was a secret as it could be, but that's n it was. its members were often very widely known in their communities because they they arose from those communities. what what were the disguises about?

partly to terrify people. partly to grant anonymity. to people. or participate headed in. in in terrorist acts. and anonymity allowed people, men, to do things that they might might not do if. their faces were seen even by their fellows in the klan. i so i. initially, the federal government is unable to cope with the klan. there's there's a kind of myth that the south was, under military occupation during reconstruction in 1865, at the very end of the war, july 1565, there were about a million federal troops in the south. they demobilized very rapidly. northerners didn't want or didn't want to pay for an army that size. by 1868, there were 12,000

troops spread all across the south. north carolina, i had just a couple of hundred mississippi at one point had fewer than 200 for the entire state. this doesn't constitute military occupation. nearly all these were infantry. it's rather hard, if you think about it, for an infantryman to capture a klansman on horseback. so the klan carried out its terrorism virtually with impunity for years. the andrew johnson administration was not very interested in prosecuting the klan. in addition klansmen, the klan intimidated or co-opted law enforcement judges, juries and so on. so there very, very little prosecute people who testified in clan were often murdered. that was part of the terrorist goal of the klan. so how did how does government

deal with. finally, i crucial is the passage of the 14th amendment which extends civil rights or citizenship rights let's say citizenship rights to free people across the south and. seems to provide a guarantee that those rights will be protected. there is a great debate that's taking in congress that's taking place across the country about who what entity can enforce civil rights. traditionally, insofar as civil rights can be enforced, it's by the states. you think rights was a as a political argument, died with the defeat of the confederacy? it didn't. it persisted well, after the war. still with us today, obviously so it was generally presumed that states it was the duty of states enforce civil rights and

to protect citizens. well, most states didn't particularly when there were no federal troops, courts couldn't be trusted. and local militias were weak or nonexistent. and. in 1871, congress and i think this will be of particular interest to to you on this the soon today a congress passes three enforcement acts are designed to give the federal government the authority to enforce the 14th amendment in the south and and third the third of those acts is known as the klux klan act. and it's very specific in describing and making illegal the klan. the klan, the behaviors of the klan wearing costumes on a

public or in wearing disguises while invading a home home in the middle of the night in daylight, on public roads, in many other very specific details make it clear that the klan is the target. or part of what's taking place. at the same. and jane referred to this was an extreme investigation by the congress of the united states by a joint committee essentially to investigate the ku klux klan. it was probably the most expensive, extensive, if not expensive, extensive oral investigation to date. it produced incredible 13 volumes of testimony. i'm going to show you a volume.

this is a short one. this is for florida, the smallest, but there are 13 volumes. thousands and thousands of pages in all. and this committee, joint committee dominated by republic gans, of course, who were a majority in congress at the time, took testimony in. washington on capitol hill in the capitol and also dispatched subcommittees across the south. most of the former confederate states, where testimony was taken in localities almost everywhere. a few states. it skipped a few states for reasons that can't get into and it. took testimony from hundreds and hundreds of witnesses. it was the first federal investigation that. i'm aware of the testimony from

african-americans and also the first to my knowledge, the took testimony from women many women, both black and white, testified many african-americans. and much of that testimony is extremely poignant. there are witnesses who talk about walking 30 miles to get to the committee hearing room. there are witnesses who are murdered, it turns out, for testifying and the extraordinary forthrightness detail with which african americans in particular testify is is breathtaking for the first time, black in the south have an audience with authority that's listening to what they have to say. and they talk in great detail about the difficulties, their life as free people. the the intimidation they their

family have undergone. how members of their family, even wives, children have been murdered, tortured, flogged by the ku klux klan. how in other ways they've been punished for trying to vote this investigate mission is in large part a huge chronicle of voter intimidation, voter suppression and and of every imaginable type, ranging from putting guns to people's heads on election day to stealing boxes, stuffing ballot boxes and so on. so this this investigation, this this report, 13 volumes was a is an extraordinary resource as it was for me. i use it a great length for material in the book and the questioning itself. and i say this because i think i'm this is this room. there are a lot of people who know how congress works.

the interrogation of witnesses is really quite interesting. the committee includes, both radical republicans who are naturally sympathetic to black and other republican witnesses and also includes democrats, a northern democrats who are on the whole very hostile to black witnesses and and republicans and you see them in time, essentially undermining attempting to undermine witnesses who are telling we know the truth about what was happening to them and taking extraordinary risks to testify at all. and, you know, these volumes, by the way, are are available online. they can be downloaded. they make they make challenging

reading only because the tape the tape is about that small and if you see me wearing glasses, it's for a reason or. and there's also excellent material in other sources which are used to research the book in archives in the south and a freedman's bureau reports and also material in the national archives as well as material that was very timely. it's a apply to me by the u.s. senate historians office, which has always been a great and generous for looking at senators in during the periods that i write about. so congress has contributed an enormous amount to to providing a panel drama with a profound

down human dimension into. the d. behavior of the klan in south. we are seeing in the south a massive political insurrection, guerrilla war by another means the klan. as i implied earlier, kind of adopted the cavalry techniques that a bedford forest employed during the war. they attack in the middle of the night. typically, they attack helpless and unarmed people. there's no bravery in anything the klan is doing. there's they are always attacking, helpless and unarmed people. and i'll talk a little bit later about what happens when they finally have to face federal troops. so congress has passed really

powerful legislation that gives president the executive authority to to go after the klan to the klan. he does. we're talking now about ulysses grant grant figures very prominently in the book, as you can imagine. it's in the title grant evolved greatly from essentially not very political man before the civil war who briefly owned one slave of a man whom. he gave his freedom. he could have sold him. he needed the money. he didn't. he gave him his freedom to a man who is deeply impressed one by the suffering of of enslaved people during the war and also by the bravery of black troops during, the war he welcomes black refugees into his armies, camps and supports the of black troops. unlike many his fellow union officers whose racism overcame

their need for troops. but at any rate, after the war grant evolves pretty steadily into a radical, into an ally of the radicals in congress. and like i said, he is stevens, whom i write about and and and others and. what is grand? do. he has a two pronged campaign against the klan. one is military. he dispatches more troops into the epicenters of klan activity, specifically up county of country, south where he suspends habeas is given that power by the ku klux klan act suspends. habeas corpus in a group of counties in in upcountry south carolina the troops he sends are spearheaded by the seventh cavalry and many of you, of

course, will know that that was the regiment commanded by george armstrong custer, which was partially wiped out at the battle of the little bighorn same soldiers. i some of these same men who are who are fighting the klan in south carolina are killed at the little bighorn a few years later they are commanded in south carolina by a man named lewis merrill, a pennsylvanian who had a stern doing civil war career fighting confederate in missouri. and he was a rare abolitionist. and the officer class of the of the army. he's also a lawyer. he's perfectly to go after the klan because he he knows what's legal and he knows how to fight. he's supported and to an end and to a degree directed by grant's attorney general, amos ackerman,

extraordinary individual. all of these these men figure prominently in my book. amos ackerman, newly appointed attorney general. he was raised in new hampshire, but he made his career and life in georgia, where he was before the worst slave owner. he very reluctantly performed nonmilitary service for the confederate government. but after the war, quickly embraced the republican party embraced emancipation and became a radical or a and a leader. in georgia, political leader in georgia. and ackerman was profoundly moral. man. he was deeply religious and he recognized and i mean his own notes and notes and letters on the subject are extraordinary. they're mostly at the university of virginia. he saw deeply what motivated his fellow white southerners to

commit acts of terrorism. he was appalled by it morally and he dispatched cadres of federal into the south who would prosecute the klan. so prosecutors prosecute their backed up by the army. thousands of klansmen are arrested and indicted. many, many imprisoned locally for for varied periods of time in the end only comparatively small number are sent to federal prison. so since our time is is finite here i'm going to cut to the chase a bit and say, well, what happened? the war against the klan. grant's war against the klan was a success. it broke the klan. the klan collapsed as i said earlier, faced with soldiers, with carbines, klansmen

surrendered. they caved in. they were cowards front. they were they were they were okay with torturing, isolated, as said it, black and white citizens in cabins in the middle of the night but faced and soldiers they caved in. all right. so the klan as it as a terrorist organization collapsed 1870, primarily 70, late 72, 73, 1874. so why then wasn't it reconstruct and project a great victory? in short, we can talk more about this for those who want to pursue this question. two other things are happening gradually part as a result of the intimidation we've been talking about. the republican party has been fractured and in large part broken in many parts of the south, not everywhere, but in many parts white southerners

have been driven out partly through intimidation and partly through the appeal to race, which divides republicans. sadly, in the south and, the african-american vote in the south, black americans vote initially in huge numbers. once they're permitted to, but through intimidation and and the manipulation of elections elections, the republican party hemorrhages black voters, not everywhere, but significantly. so that one after another southern states are being returned to the rule of the democratic party, which i'll say again, was the reactionary party, the anti reconstruction party, the post confederate party of the time. so one after another, southerners states are falling to democratic control, which gives state government the

ability to restrict to suppress voters by less terroristic means. terrorism doesn't 100% go away, but it's much. and what else is happening? and this is important to know that that northerners are losing interest in the south. they're rapidly interest in the south's problems, in the problems for african-americans as the public attention, political attention is shifting in other directions. in 1874, which is the some might say was the real end of reconstruction, a republicans lose control of the house and represent the lives and therefore the ability to pass bills and therefore the ability to support the troops in the south and to pay enough federal prosecutors in the south. it's very expensive. congress doesn't do it anymore.

and as as i think probably we all know by in 1876, the republican party as a whole nationally kind of faces a political reality that. leads them to restrict the use of those few very few federal troops and still remain in the south. it's not a mass withdrawal of troops because there's no massive troops to withdraw. and i it's clear. it's clear even within the republican party that that their voters will not support reconstruction any longer politically. so ensure i mean, what are their is it working history? it's not it's not a book about present day politics and it's not a polemic none.

nonetheless, i it's inescapable that there are certain kinds of lessons we have to draw from it. one is almost for south africa, which is that the line between between civilization and barbarism can be mighty thin, though the level or the line between. order, order and chaos can be mighty thin. we saw that on on january six, 2021, here in the united states as well, that the potential for terrorism exists in any society, that it's imperative to remain alert to the fact that it can be, as american as anything else and in the country as as saturated with gun owning and as characterized as it is today by demagogic politics and appeals due to rate race resentments. i think we're well advised to

pay attention to to the roots of. the roots of possible terrorism and political dissolution in the united states. but i also think this story this history does show that decisive action by by the federal government, a federal government that takes these problems seriously and is willing to face them squarely, a decisive action can work. and that it's a it's a lesson in the importance of government and the ability of government to act. to act. chris natively and i say creatively in the sense of, of, of crafting legislation and and and act acting boldly and i mean, grant, grant was not backed by a unanimous republican party or unanimous american public either.

what he did was bold and what radical leaders in congress did was bold. it was risky. it was necessary, and it worked. so i think jane and sam, i've probably reached the end of my allotted time here, and i should have this perhaps back to you. and i can see that there must be some questions. i absolutely. fergus, you have gotten our people going. i have 15 questions. so we're going to we're going to go after it. if you can think some of them sort of go from the question about what was going on at the time that really there were it was in fact the south in a situation where there was hunger was that that's been part of the mythology is something that was

going on or is that just storage okay well i haven't yet used the term the lost cause. now i'm going to guess that most people on the zoom know what i'm referring to. the lost cause is the. the, the well, it's a mythology. the mythology that took hold in the south. it was ardently and actively promoted by a former confederate ex and the next generation of of of of of post-reconstruction crow era leaders of. the south who wrote blacks and white republicans out of the story except as corrupt. okay. the south was not characterized by massive hunger. it was not characterized something called black rule, that that was an epithet hurled in the polemics of the time.

there is no state of former south that was ruled by did african americans participate in government? yes, they did. for differing periods of time in most of the states in from from low level offices up to state legislatures the root the root of the lost cause is unadulterated unmitigated racism. there was a racial revolution taking place, the ku klux klan, as paramilitary arm of the democratic party and the part of the aboveground democratic opposed it in every possible as opposed to reconstruction because it would have meant a complete racial and political reorder of society and and the economy in the south for a time. that did occur in a few states. the caliber of african-americans who participated in politics is, on the whole, pretty

extraordinary. and anybody who think were there some were thinly educated, of course, where there are a lot of white southerners were then we had educated guess there were was there corruption? yes. welcome to america. was it universally corrupt? absolutely not. the republican leadership in the south. and it did vary from time, time, state to state, town to town was on the whole, pretty impressive. and that includes both native republicans, often former confederates, who decided to embrace the future as well as i northerners who moved south, some of them quite brave and committed to building a new and more equitable society in the south. tarred carpetbaggers. that's an epithet like any other slanderous epithet, and should be treated that way. and and i the goal of the klan

was to destroy the republican party. the political goal one and two to to to push african-american and back as close to the condition of slavery as possible. the south white southerner who defended the confederacy, regarded that all that as humiliation. well, there was the war. you know i have. to keep going on that one, jane. but let's move on to the next question. you know, this is a audience. that, of course, would come up with a quote from the time. and one of our folks has written about really inquiring about president grant and in his second inaugural address, he spoke about looking forward to the future day when the nation's first agree on some sort of international congress what why

do you think that grant 1873 was talking international institutions and how does that fit into the drama that we're talking about? yeah, well, that's a great question. well, who knew that ulysses grant was the founder of the united nations. i mean, that is the vision that he's got there in does indeed foreshadow what came to pass in a in a in a certain fashion or aspirationally perhaps after the second world war. that is what he's thinking of are i mean, grant was an extraordinary individual. he was not an actual politician. he was he was much better educated than he was often given credit for. he thought serious certainly about issues he had about public. and as you your the questioner suggested even international issues it's it's what says in

that of of course he had no effect he had no effect whatsoever. but it was aspirational. it was a statement of values and hopes it was akin to the policy he pursued with respect to native americans, american indians, grant's policy initially was a pacific policy. by today's standard, nobody very few people approve of the establishment of reservations and so on. within the context of his time, his policy aspired, aspired to peaceful relations with the tribal nations. okay, that fell, especially after the massacre of or the defeat of custer's force and 76 i you know, you you know that that statement of of grant's with respect to international internal national government.

i don't think particularly interlock with his policies. i don't think it really interlocks at all with his policy in south, which was forceful. it was not afraid to use force where necessary, after all, he let the union armies to victory in a civil war and he knew that the klan had to be crushed certainly he did wish to see a reunion of the southern and northern states and to sharing a you know, development that brought the southern states closer to the level of the northern states. he wanted to see. you know, a healthy relationship, a healthy and productive, mutually productive relations between the races in the south. he aspired to that, but he was not willing to sacrifice the rights of black southerners in the name of conciliation,

reconciliation, which many others. and finally, the reconciliation arsonists won the argument. and while we're really talking the fact that all of this was deeply driven by a really built in racist. one, we have actually two questioners who in different ways about the role of black soldiers and for people in the south to suddenly see an african-american soldier carrying a weapon with an army uniform, whether the united states or whether it's the state militia of black troops trying to protect the franchise. was there was there something that was especially challenging with that activity or how would you like put those two questions

in perspective? well, that's a very it's a very important question, actually, and it's hotly within the south and whether to black militias and black federal troops in the south during reconstruction, white hostility, the shock of whites who who have been already infused through their lives with the notion of the barbarism, the inherent barbarism and menace of blacks, even unarmed, are our are horrified, revolted at the sight. i mean racism is is so deeply into americans at the time and more so in the south, obviously, than even elsewhere. it's true in the north as well. is deeply disturbing. and and it's one of the the sight of black troops is one of the flashpoints for the

activation of the klan. and there are instances of quite a few instances where a local republicans, radical republicans, even in the south, asked the federal to withdraw black troops and replace them with the white troops. we're talking about small numbers here. as i said, very few hundred here and there. so black regiments are moved around there, mostly moved out to the frontier. in fact, a lot of the troops who fought the indian on the frontier are actually black federal troops. that's that's another thing that's kind of been dropped out of our historic memory. but historical memory so is very disturbing. have in their minds this terror of of black revolution, black rebellion. they think of haiti at the turn of the 19th century and so on. and that's an it's an issue. it's an issue. and it's very rare that that

black troops are used during reconstruct. and new orleans is an exception, which is no time really to go into a detailed stew deep in the weeds there were there are murders. august, let me ask you question just the perspective. sure. there's one of our listeners who said she had understood that a piece of the fear that we understand as racism may partly been driven by the sense that what had been done to the african-american people through enslaved would be turned around and, be done to the to the white. so that, in fact, there was a sense of guilt that drove that. now, if that's the case, there are other ways to resolve that, is that just sort of a glossing

over of the situation or is there any evidence that that was something that was going on or that occurred, that fear is expressed? no, not infrequently in letters and occasionally even in some of the testimony from whites that was collected by congress by apologists for the klan. i, i mean, it's not universal. and i don't know that it reduces to guilt or rises to guilt, i should say. i don't you don't pick up a lot of guilt, frankly, you do pick up fear. that is just just be logical that blacks would retaliate the fact that black americans did not reach. now is one of the extraordinary facts of american history and the the fact that black americans embraced democratic process. they embraced education and they embraced the the institutions that white americans built and

that had oppressed them. i mean, this is this is really. there is almost no instance can think of. i'd have to really think hard to come up with any instance that that resembled retaliation by black troops or, armed blacks against white citizens, although whites in the south typically described any action, any any example of blacks carrying arms as menacing and potentially revolution finery, even when it was completely peaceful. and the second amendment, by the way, a figure very. in in the in these debates about the right of black americans to carry carry arms and fact the the arguments that were made during reconstruction by blacks and their white allies were pretty pretty similar. what the nra the arguments that

the nra makes today, the second amendment right to carry guns and and that tends to be denied by white reactionaries. all right. let me tell you what we're going to do we're coming our 1:00 hour we have. so many more questions we have already made an agreement with fergus that he would do a bonus round for about 10 minutes after the after hour. but we also respect that many our people who are on the call are on their lunch hour. and you need sign off and be respectful. we thank you every single one of you who's joined. and we want you to know this webinar is recorded. it will be available on our website. it's we also want to encourage you to go out by the book because as you can tell, there's a lot more to the story than going to get in this one hour. but we really appreciate fergus

you giving us your time to do this. and we appreciate of our listeners because the united states capitol historical society, while chartered by congress is funded by the members and the donors. and each and every one of you, as you come to the end of the year thinking about how you're going to make your charitable donations, we hope you'll consider the capitol historical society if you're looking for great gifts. we've got beautiful ornaments made from, capitol marble and other merchandise. we'll send all that out in our follow up letter. we also have coming up in not have want two weeks a the next in our series the amendments we're talking about the 15th amendment and the enduring on voting rights which a lot to do with the conversation that we're having today with fergus.

we also want to invite you if you're at capitol person, the united states mint and and bureau of engraving together with the capitol historical society, will be at the rayburn house building folder. for you from 10 to 3, four on tuesday, december 5th, for all your christmas gift giving opportunities. and now we return for the questions and i'm going to tell you, fergus, we've got sort of three big themes and one, i want you to be thinking about, because it really ties into something that the society is doing about the brantford, hayes tilden election and somebody you know well is writing a play for us, our beloved jean border, which happens be mary fergus is writing a play for us to use for

civic education to help people understand and the electoral college. but would you tell us about the rutherford b hayes tilden negotiations and backstory because it seems like it's more complicated than the, you know, delays of. like try to get pretty short answers, a set of questions that i know there are people there other questions there and so on. i'll try not to be as prolix as i have been. 1876. yeah. boy the complexity of what happened in 1876 is, is, is extreme ordinary i, i think most people here will know it was a it seemed to have been a long election whether unclear whether rutherford b hayes the republican or samuel the democrat actually won on

election night. hayes believed that he had probably lost yet he winds up president ensure it. i think i've been impressed by start i'm going to be writing about this also in my next book as it happens the the seriousness with which the various committee commissions and committees that that negotiated these these rough shoals electoral after election day before inauguration day. the seriousness with which they approached their duty. the the metric with which they examined voting in states where the vote was in question was their corruption in some in some voting in some places, yes, there was. but it was pretty well sorted out more than we've been led to. imagine and rutherford b hayes hayes was not sitting in a back room with the cigar director

directing an army of trolls, for example republican trolls to ensure that he would he would win the presidency. in fact he. although, of course, he paid attention, he stood back and let the process work itself out. and i think the story of that election very challenging course is a story of the of the success of process of government as it supposed to work and government dealing pragmatically and realistically with what seemed to be an almost in soluble situation at the beginning. so i would stay tuned. there is going to be a good on this subject soon and a couple of years there will be a book, another book on this, and we will be doing it as part of our civic education. now we have a series of questions. i'm going to kind of group together, which is you maintain

that president grant's intervention supported by congress at the time eliminated kkk. yet on the other hand the kkk came back and came back in force. and so the question are how did it come back? is the kkk still alive? does it still is still on books? is it something that we should look to? and do you see any parallels between the kkk and the emergence of the white nationalist party activity? okay. well, that's a that's a a loaded question here. okay. i may ask you to repeat part of that, but. okay, the i, i want to i want to draw distinction here.

the klan was crushed as a terrorist organization, but as as the southern states were. they said at the time, redeemed by white supremacists, and that was the term that they used. i i'm not using that as a polemic term. it's just how they described themselves. white supremacists took control. they were able to do pretty much through legislation, what they had needed, terror do beforehand, terror not totally disappear. we know well that there were lynchings that continued right up into the 1950s and so on. but so the klan of the seventies wasn't really needed as a organized terror group after the restoration of white supremacy, the klan of the 1920s was genuinely inspired by the film birth of a nation, by a proto. it is all very well known by a promoter in this in atlanta who

saw movies and thought that is a great we should try to bear in mind that americans have always go back to tocqueville writing about how americans love to form organizations and so on, fraternities and organizations and this was a guy. simmons was his name who had had been a canvasser for various fraternities. and it was a profit enterprise. it was it made a number of people very wealthy and. it was it had more membership in the north than south in the 1920s and thirties. it's as far north as new england, wisconsin, minnesota, california, oregon it was more active in the north, and it was it had different focuses, although, yes, black americans were always on the list, but it was primarily primarily other focuses. it was totally. and it collapsed as a result of that corruption. it was exposed, although it had

a dramatic a dramatic upward trajectory in the twenties and. as i said earlier, it was, again, more or less reinvent it after after world war, the klan today, i think, is a insofar as it exists, it's fractured, fragmented splinter. small groups. the klan per se, isn't necessarily precisely. we're seeing such a disturbing upsurge in in and native nativism white national ism and a nationalism that isn't purely and in a violent nationalism that that isn't purely racial but is a racial caste. you see it in the proud boys, you see it in the three percenters, you see it in in of in heavily armed militias around the country that have that are that did clearly do not actually believe in american democracy or american institute tions and i

think these these are the earth heirs of the klan there. they may wear polo shirts, polo shirts, chinos instead of crazy looking robes and horns, but they're the heirs and, you know, one of the questions in this whole conversation is where were women? yeah, well, they're so they're selling the costumes. they're selling the costumes. they're home egging the men on. there are no women riding with the klan. i've never seen one instance of that. but they're at home and they're they're they are typically all in with the men and there are plenty enough references to what women are doing and ironically and rather, rather sadly, i mean, there were even couple of instances of klansmen black seems to to to sell the robes. yeah, right yeah.

but primarily it's wives, sisters and mothers who are the ladies of the klan and i have two questions that are about political leaders and kind of they fit together little bit using your historians what could or should have what had president if president garfield had lived on termination make reconstruction work would that have shape changed the course of our nation. well you know like like most historians i'm very uneasy dealing an hypotheticals. it's not history. it's like a fantasy baseball teams you know. right but okay okay. but you'll do it anyway. do it anyway.

yeah. well, i mean, garfield. garfield came out of the radical wing of the republican party from 1880. republican radical was was a faded garment, a james g. blaine probably the most radical who still hewed to radical principles was james g. blaine, who want tried very hard to become president but didn't. garfield. i think was by the time he was elected, was pretty much had pretty much accommodated himself to the reconciliation test trend. the republican party, through grant's presidency, regarded the southern republican vote largely black, but not entirely as imperative to the of the national republican party. at the end of grant's term, the

party and this partly accounts what happened in 1876 the party. came to believe that that was no longer viable and was looking increasingly to the midwest and far west to build its electoral majorities. ohio, your state being a being being being the linchpin actually of the republicans future plans. i guess you would know, jane, most people don't. how many how presidents came from ohio. it's not an not a coincidence so i do i think anything would been different. i think there would have been i think garfield shows signs that he would have prosecuted people who, committed acts of terror in the south against blacks. he would have more and they might have had a greater punishment. but it's not absolutely clear

that i would have been true in practice to ask questions. one of our listeners said reports that many men from the south below the mason-dixon line still talk about weekend drills, the militia companies that their daddy, daddy, daddy, their daddy daddy's daddy belonged to and many of them say they've existed since. the civil war. are these militias clan connected to anybody? are they today? i would absolutely. i have i would not say that i have no basis for saying that. i think that would probably be an insult to many. if the if they're if they're militias that are constituted by the laws of the state as opposed to these freelance militias, which we see all over the country, not notably in the south either either, you know, these self-appointed militias

are another story. and i said a couple of questions ago really are to a degree, heirs to the klan in the south well. those are the southern militias. go back before the civil war. i mean to and they existed i to deal with suppose caused slave uprisings that's the way they were created and why there were so many in the south compared to the north there were some in the north for other reasons. and yes, white men, white militias, very controversial during precisely because republic governors who wanted to mobilize militias to against the klan feared to so precisely because assumed with good reason that white militias would be saturate did with klan members and they either had to rely on black militias, which produced a

violent reaction themselves and did not that that same history and therefore same training is very controversial actually. but but yeah there was there a heritage of klan involved with reconstruction there a white militias? yes. and so here's the final question that going to ask. we have many more. i would advise everyone to by the book, and you'll get more questions ask. we will have the information about how to get a hold of the book. somebody actually asked if they could send you a bookplate that you would sign so they could put their and we will include information about how to do that so if someone wants to turn their book into a signed book and commemorate it moments that they had with you that possible but couple questions came in about how does all this compare

in your mind to hamas and that kind of terrorism the activity today. okay that's easy to answer it compares very closely and compares all too closely. i something about that at the beginning. you know we think we think of terrorism something uniquely foreign really for the most of us do i think uniquely foreign organizations with strange names in faraway places. well, the klan was homegrown and it was led and i'll say it led. and its membership consisted of otherwise respectable white men, men, men in the professions property owners. it was not primarily a filled with with ignorant louts. they existed, of course they did also, but they were they were not the people who or led the

klan and i didn't dwell on the violence of the klan too much in this talk because frankly of it is absolutely horrific, is as ugly and vicious as anything you've read about in today's newspapers regarding crimes committed by isis isis or al qaida people were beheaded children were children butchered men mad men had limbs cut and other other men were castrated. i everything that you would imagine maddened and savage human beings done doing to others were done by the klan not universally, not by every klan member, but pretty much everywhere where the klan rode. so the comparison is all too close. i mean, look where the

organizations hamas i isozaki are driven by a kind of very very misguided religious zealotry that klan was driven by if not religion then although it was often sanctioned by by ministers supported it or rode with it, it was driven by a racial zealotry, a racial that frankly had had the there was not so not unlike a religion. i believe in the absolute god given imperative white supremacy, which was treated as an unquestionable imperative and right by reactionary white southerners. so sad to say, americans are capable of. and i think, as i said at the and it behooves us all to pay attention, it has often been said that that's which we do not understand, we cannot change.

and this book is an attempt to really acknowledge, learn and understand a very tortured part of our past so that we might build a more inclusive and more engaged future. and we thank you, fergus, for your contribution to by writing the book, by sharing it with us and for the many, many people who stayed on the line for the x bonus minutes. this is a dedicated group. we thank you all and we hope you'll be with us to talk about the 50 amendment on the 29th of november. take care. thank you very much. bye and thank you, everyone, who stayed with us. and