still junior varsity operator compared to churchill or compared to roosevelt. >> watch the full program online anytime on c-span.org/history, just search craig shirley or april, 1945. >> it's my honor to introduce our guest, dr. jay patrick mullen, associate professor of history and public history director at marquette university. hi, patrick. dr. ilene chang associate professor of history at sara lawrence college. hi. and from right here in boston in roxbury, hi, suzie. thank you all for joining us, i am so honored and delighted to have you all here. i want to get us started with a background on the loyalists. can you give us a brief background on people who identified as loyalists, what

happened to them after the war? patrick, do you want to start us off on this? >> thanks for having us. so, i see that as being kind of three basic categories of loyalists. there are people who wanted to remain neutral in the war, but because they were trading in invitation or british they were determined loyalists. a lot of the native americans wanted to stay out of the war, but they got sucked into it. and there were religious groups, quakers and mennenites who were opposed to war on principle and seen as siding with the british. and they were loyalists, who, some of them, who believed in tori principles of obeying the king no matter what. and the resistance to lawful authority was a christian sin.

and that was a small group. i think most loyalists were people who held the same principles of constitution as the patriots did. they just thought that the violence of the sons of liberty, the oppressiveness was a greater threat and the constitutional liberty than crown and parliament and i guess we'll see further discussion today. what happened to these folks, they had a different destiny. >> and suzie, do you have anything to add to that that you'd like to share? >> just that one of the-- when you sort of come back 10,000 feet and you look at the percentages, a lot of loyalists who didn't have the wherewithal to kind of take us there, it's as patrick said, remained neutral and they might have had an opinion, but they didn't say anything because it meant risking too much and that sort of, you know, the middle and

lower classes of folks, who were really more concerned. >> and let's go deeper with this and i want to pass this one 0 ilene to start. loyalists have a wide range of backgrounds, expressions of sympathy for great britain. what were their reasons and consequences of that in their daily lives. was it as simple as we're british? >> well, i think it's true that the loyalists were pro british and this ties in a little what patrick was saying, how the loyalists shared a lot of the same principles as the revolutionary. to say that the loyalist were pro british and the others m pro american. on one hand the revolutionaries were very much pro british themselves until 1775 and 1776. they were protesting ott british taxes about you they thought of themselves as

british citizens and didn't think they were treated as equal british citizens. on the other side, loyalists while they were loyal to britain, they saw themselves as true americans. what they believed, this is what really separates them in the end from the revolutionaries is that when it comes time for war and independence, that whatever problems they had with british policies, they thought that war would be too destructive, they didn't think they could win against the british, but that france and spain would take over and they felt that americans were better off under british rule within the system and trying to survive within that system. >> we got a really great question in the chat off the bat. thank you for this one. were loyalists called loyalists at the time and in temps of our vocabulary to keep it going. what did people refer to loyal

i-s in the era. >> i think this depends who they were. in the revolution they called the loyalists tories, and to the distinguish them as if they were for the monarchy. sometime around 1774, yeah, i think from their perspective they did see themselves as loyalists, but not seen as that by the revolutionary. >> that's interesting. does inbound in else want to jump in on that kind of background about the loyalists? patrick, absolutely. >> yeah, i just wanted to-- one of the ones that massachusetts loyalists wrote in attacking john adams said, you know, well, you guys call us tories. tories believe somebody can't do what they want to then call me a tory. and i just want to concur that for me, the problem is less

explainable, why some americans, about why some americans, for the american colonists were enormously proud of being british. not just true with english or scottish and they resisted parliamentary acts that they saw as unconstitutional in the british constitution, right? and even when new england militia took up arms in 1775, they saw themselves-- took inspiration from the british civil war and some felt -- the american revolution initially was kind of-- the patriots thought of a continuation of that tradition. >> patrick, let's kind of stay on the topic with you a little

more about the tragedy of the loyalists, if you will. thomas hutchinson, a great example of a really maligned figure after being forced to evacuate, he spent the rest of his life in england hoping to come home to america, but unable to do so. this is an interesting tragedy. people born in america, true american citizens, with the british constitution and their own government, were forced to flee because of their political affiliations. so what happened to those people? did they become refugees? where were ex-pat communities created? can you tell us a little bit, patrick? >> sure, a lot of loyalists did become refugees. this is particularly true in england where they were very much outnumbered in parts of new york or the south, and when the british evacuated boston, they took about 3,000 loyalists with them and these folks went to new england. some of them stayed in--

i'm sorry, in nova scotia. and particularly from new york settled in ontario. some went to london and became an ex-pat community there. and then some loyalists were people who were liberated by british army and found new life in canada and some of those folks eventually would create a colony of people in west africa, sierra leone. and some did return to the colonies, to the states at this point, and in some cases successfully sued to regain property. senator hamilton represented a lot of these people in new york and in many cases they were reassimilated into american society. this is less true in new england than new york and the south, where the numbers were to begin with, but not all of

them have the same kind of tragic. >> thanks, patrick. suzie, do you want to add to that? >> well, actually i thought that was interested that alexander hamilton worked on behalf of many of the ones who were coming back, and there's a wonderful story about john adams reuniting with his friend jonathan stewart and they had their friendship had broken up over the revolutionary war and then when it was over they saw each other and just gave each other a big hug at one point. i can't remember right now whether this was while adams was in the u.k. or whether it was back on home grounds, but, you know, they-- there were ponds of friendship and love and family that sometimes were temporarily broken by the revolution. >> it is emotional when you think about it, really. and talk about that tension, the tension of bonds. i want to get into the tension

between the bond between reservation and that tension right there and i want to start with ilene for this one. to kind of address the tension between the preservation and the loyalists in american history. how have loyalist writers and historians from the era perceived from their time of writing to today? has our perception of these story tellers changed over time? does listing loyalist stories give a broader perspective of american biography? >> well, yeah, i think there's been a lot of change and i think in terms of how modern scholars have seen them. he think that modern scholars have kind of portrayed these loyalist and writers and historians as double losers, losing in the struggle over historical memory in the sense

they have been forgotten and failed to produce a powerful counter narrative that could compete with the patriotic narrative produced by the revolutionary. and i think that's true to some extent, but what is interesting, if you go back to the time of the revolution itself and the years immediately afterwards. i mean, look at american nationalist writers who were very pro revolutionary and nationalism. they were very ambivalent about the historians and they said they were prejudice, pro british, on the other hand the nationalist writers are plagiarizing. they copy them in a selective way and twist them to use them to justify the revolution, and american exceptionalism. the reason why it's important to know more about the loyalist historians, they play an

important role of shaping the american exceptionalism that we still have to this day. >> do you feel that-- and this is jumping off one of our questions here, do you feel that today the general vibe in historical community is empathy towards loyalist historians than previously given in previous generations? >> generally that's been a major change. i think for a time, the loyalist have been forgotten and vilified and i think starting in the late 20th century there was interest by modern historians and it's been a revival and a resurgence of interest in the loyalists. among historians. i'm not sure for the larger public though. >> i will say that i am -- i am not a historian and learning about this was fascinating to me, just the change of perception of this.

i am representative of the general public. and it's very, very interesting. i want to send this off to patrick as well and how do you think it was american nationalism or exceptionalism? what are your thoughts on that? >> again, i agree with ilene that they played a role in defining since american exceptionalism, because the american colonists and revolutionaries were so culturally british, they needed a way once they're in the country and they did this less in terms of culture than ideology, right? so they said that what makes you american is that you believe in republicanism. (inaudible) lived in monarchy,

so to be american is to believe that the people should govern and this makes us unique in the world so that then when you had party conflict in 1790's between the federalists and the democratic republicans, the democratic republicans would call the federalists tories, say saying you don't believe in the people. and this held into the end of the 20th century. one of the things that i think helped change at least among colors, their view of the loyalists, increased late 20th century and the history of native americans, and african-americans, people of color, because they faced very stark choices about whose side they were going to be on, and we've kind of recovered the importance of the contributions of people covering the revolution, but looking at those native americans who did side with the british as the best way of preserving their

land claims or the enslaved african-americans who did run through the british lines and take up arms as the best way of retaining their freedom. so, there was a change of interest just beyond what americans did was to have more sympathy for the loyalist perspective. >> do you have anything you want to add to that as the steward of a loyalist monument, as it were? >> well, so, i would pick up what ilene mentioned and that was that sort of the scholars are looking at the loyalist histories, but in terms of the history that we do at the house, we're-- we haven't been looking so much at the histories that loyalists wrote, you know, so i had to do a little bit of research on that and the historian aggressive --

for this presentation, it's been in the background for me. that's an interesting take on it and interesting to see how it plays out in the future, how we-- how these loyalist histories become more part of the regular knowledge of history fans, i guess. >> and a big part of it, being aware of things like the shirley house and loyalist monuments and what happened to the monuments. and i want to pivot to patrick to start. after the revolution, monuments were removed and places were renamed. and king george's statue was toppled in new york when the declaration of independence was read and bar massachusetts named after him.

>> how can you relate these to the removal of statues today. and they felt they did not represent the stories and heroes that we wished to celebrate. >> sure, in the beginning of the war, it wasn't clearly a british phenomenon and then the declaration of independence, the case of the soldiers and sailors dashing down to the equestrian statue of the king, pulling it down. not only, they pulled off the head and fired a musket ball into the head and then every time that a people have collectively agreed we need to reinvent ourselves, right? and we need to reconceive of

ourselves as a community and you sort of need the iconic acts of iconclasm. you have coats of arms that are pulled down and burned and if we can look to this revolutionary experience as a precedent for what's going on today as americans kind of rethink their history and accordingly, we think their identity, i think it's necessary for us to not just revise our public memory, but to revise our landscape, which is a way of making our people around us. so, it's-- i would add that george washington was very upset when the soldiers pulled down the statue because they did it without approval, and this was kind of one of the conflicts

that we have today. and if it's okay, what terms should we do this. and what do we do with the soldiers doing it on their own, pulling it down and is there a legal process to go through. saying that well, the people should support at that-- i probably sound like a tory at this point so i should shut up. [laughter] >> suzie, you had a point. >> yes, well, speaking to patrick's comment about the destruction of the equestrian statue of the king, the american conflict or the american sort of people, asked about it we love the king, we love the king and the americans still have a love with the british monarchy. so that was tremendously upsetting for a lot of people. and even if they never met the king, would never meet the king, they had the warm

personal feelings for the father figure, in british culture had a thousand year history. our king is our father. so and that's-- no revolution is ever complete, right? you continue symbolic things and then you draw back. the one that always in this sort of discussion about the destruction of monuments, the one that strikes me is the destruction of the monument of the soldier who was a father of commander dumont in france. the father of dumont was a black man born of an enslaved woman in dominica and a french nobleman and he was brought to france in the 1700's and educated like a young white frenchman. he was free because he was on french soil. he rises in the military ranks, fights in the revolution and becomes one of napoleon's most

effective and revered generals. as he rises through the ranks, napoleon rose to hate him and napoleon is the one who put him there for several years and fast forward, a statue of him erected. a black man, but he fights -- he fights for the brutality of napoleonic armies and nazis come through france and see the statue and because he's a black man they destroy it. so there are always of these complexities that feed into it. when we look at statues and monument we really only see the simple and symbolic stories and we make these because we always end up losing the complexity from them. and these symbols are always going to be subject to the reinterpretation of emotions. >> and i want to deep dive into the complexity of the shirley

house itself. you're the executive director. so it wasn't destroyed as a monument, but rather, it was appropriated by american troops and later hosted extremely pro-american ceremonies like a celebration for the 1824 return of lafayette, a major event in nationalism and historic memory of the revolution for early americans. how do we today evaluate the historical significance of the house itself? is it a loyalist monument meaning the enduring legacy of loyalists or of significance because it was reinterpreted those americans in 18th century history? >> although we kind of do neither in our interpretation. what we do, we'll developed our story in response to the architecture of the building and what the building

represents. and it is an english, a british country house in america, it's a high paladian style, and it was not a colonial country house. because he was the governor, we interpret the house and a lot of the governor and his family as sort of representations for the british empire and we talk about the legacy that the house represents in three ways. one is that any empire, the british empire captured, you know, concurred both land and people and exploited them and we can talk about the slave trade and the british role in the slave trade in british history and we can talk about conquests of natural resources and you can start with the fur trade in new england and then move to the timber trade and so, there's that sort of piece

of imperialism which later just sort of, you know, both of these things perpetuate american culture in-- or legacy of america is british. and then talk in terms of what the british empire represents and its imprint on american culture is sort of our persistent problem with wealth and equity because the british laws were very much the imprint the way that we deal with poverty in america today. so, on some level we actually talk about the continuity here and i'll give you a quick example because i realize that was pretty abstract description before, but, for example, governor shirley, the governor in the 1740's was called your excellency. ditto for the democratic republican governor of the

common-law of massachusetts after the revolutionary war and still being called your excellency. what that represents is this continuity of british identity, culture, food, politics, religion, literature, that persists in america, as for many years as we try to find this, you know, stanley -- this new national identity, so, these other three subjects that i talked about before. they're, you know, part and parcel of any empire, but in america, they have a particularly british origin story. >> that's-- so that's how we talk about it. so, the loyalists and the patriots, went through that larger current. >> i just want to jump in. we have some questions in the chat, that it's a great discussion about the line in

the unicorn taking down, and the lion, and susan asked if they were taken down in boston. >> they were, however, they were put back in the 1870's, i've been told, to get the building to its original state. however, there was a public backlash at the time so when they reinstalled the lion and the, you know, you know, unicorn. they they come into the space and take a tour and our

brilliant-- they'll take you through that. and i want to look at the monument just in general, and patrick, i think i'm going to pass this to you first, why were some monuments and properties and artifacts decimated and others reappropriated generally? >> a lot of reason for iconoclasm and shifts in change and regimes and one of the reasons the statue was taken down of the king in new york. the shirley house was useful to the american army. as william in cambridge became command center for the army when was located in cambridge during the seizure of boston. and one of the reasons why the new york monument was taken down was not just, oh, we're going to have this proxy murder

of the king, execution of the king, but it's 4,000 pounds of lead in the hands of an army that was absolutely starved for ammunition. and take it to a foundry and melt it down to 42,000 musket balls and back at the british army. so a lot of these questions what aspects of the old british regime were preserved and what were torn down had something to do with symbolic cultural considerations and also, practice cal calculations and i agree with suzie, americans typically hold onto british culture, but they do-- they readapt it just like the shirley house and we were singing god save the king and now we just keep the tune and we sing, my country 'tis of thee, the same melody.

and speaking of the lion and the unicorn, there's a statue and historic restoration and that does not go over. and there's how much americans are willing to hold onto their material british heritage as a part of historic memmemories, b symbolic comes into play. >> anything you want to add? >> in terms of the lawrence house, and is another, and all loyalist houses that were preserved because people generally said, you know, well, he's not there anymore, but it's a nice house, i'd like that house, right? and? the shirley house, for example, when the entire neighborhood was sort of destroyed at one

point, the house itself was made of fresh, heavy timber, so stoutly built that it was more expensive to tear it down than to actually pick it up and move it across the street at one point. because it was a nice house, right? at some point it doesn't really matter that it was a loyalist house and then it becomes a curiosity. >> ilene, i'm going to pop this one over to you. did historians preserve or erase loyalists the same way that culture did? >> yeah, i think that's an interesting comparison and, yeah, i think especially when you look at what i was saying about how the early american national historians were copying and plagiarizing and turning it into a nationalist message. and in a way, you can say that

he were occupying the words of the loyalist historians in the way that they were occupying houses. and again, similar to both what patrick and suzie were saying. the fact that they were dependent to construct their nationalist message shows the influence and connection to britain and the way that they're readapting that to connect with american identity. >> do you want to add to that? >> i think one of the things as we go forward, for me, a public historian and patrick and eileen as scores. looking, setting aside the black and white and good guy/bad guy, helping us define who we are as a people, i think most people who visit the shirley house comes away with, the history that they've enriched their knowledge of

their identity, their historical identity as an american, right, and what that means. so, it becomes a subtler story than the good guy/bad guy, lack and white. >> the question in the chat for people who wanted to experience the monument to loyalists, what other loyalists houses besides the longfellow house are open today? katherine kay has asked. >> so i would say the warner house and slave quarters was just an amazing sight and again, the grinnell house in jamaica plains is a good one. i can't think of others at the moment. they can reach out to me, because it was a-- we have a brochure that sort of talks about the tory trail and so you can visit a bunch of tory houses in new england and

i can send a copy for whoever wants to reach out to me at the shirley house. >> we're trying to think of loyalist landmarks, right? and this is-- the replay came out. and i may suggest for ticonderoga. like for the shirley house it's a british site readapted as an american site and the steps there are dedicated to telling the story of the british army and not just the americans, who occupied it and turned it around and the role the french and the native americans as well. so there are cure raters out there that are trying to recover the lost loyalist stories that are kind of buried under our longstanding patriot boosterism. >> and also, susan has suggested kings chapel, and the

marl pit hall in monmouth county was a suggestion, too. thank you, thank you to our chat participants. i want to zoom back out and bring us kind of now, now into where we stand today. so, rather than thinking of the loyalists, as i think you learned in elementary school, here were the good guys, it was the revolutionaries and here was the bad guys, it was the loyalists. rather than thinking of them as villains in the story of how america came to be. how might we present them in a fairer and more nuanced way to students and the general public? >> i guess, what i would say, that -- i would say one way to do that is to acknowledge that, like the revolutionary, americans were loyalists, too, and make people recognize the revolution is not just a war of

independence of americans against the british, but a civil war between americans, americans who shared many of the same values. >> patrick, do you have anything to add to that? >> yeah, i would say that in so far as there's a tradition in america of conscious conscientious objection and people who hold those views today, and quakers and monnenites in a terrible position, religious convictions-- and in terms of those loyalists who held principles and sided with the crown, i'd say that what they were saying was there needed to be--

the rule of law often requires some check on majority will and this remains part of american tradition. it becomes integral to the u.s. constitution and is central to our politics today. if we step back and say, wait a minute, you know what? the loyalists never went away. the tradition is essential to the american tradition, and i think we'll understand the loyalists in the revolutionary era in a different light. >> suzie, do you have anything to round us out on that idea? >> yes, i would definitely say visit the homes of the loyalists and you'll be learning that history upfront and environmentally and supporting some really wonderful institutions that are doing a lot of work to preserve our local and national history and to preserve our story in all of its complexity. >> i'm going to pull a fantastic question out of the chat, i love this.

benjamin a says where does the study of loyalism go from here? what possible activists would you like to see the study of loyalism go down? >> there's been some good recent research on the so-called ordinary people who have become loyalists. i mean, you know, the town of hutchinson's or william franklins are well-known, but as we-- as the historians become the role of people so-called in history. i think there's more tension on common folks, the earlier narrative that the they were the aristocrats and this was a class war and they were driven out. score one for the common man, but there were plenty of common people who remain loyalists and suffered terribly and as a

result of that, and their stories, i think, are being told by each of these and i think particularly in the case of african-americans and native americans. >> do you have something to add to that? >> i think it's interesting, patrick sort of took the wind out of my sail, i guess. it's interesting as i continue to read in this area is also to look at and this isn't looking at loyalists exactly. but the british sailors and soldiers were frequently, a lot, a lot of complaints not only from americans for being occupied, but also from british, the british gentry about how rough the soldiers are, right? and how they're just destructive, they're, you know-- because they're paid very, very

poorly, the navy and the british generals are considered expendable people and so, i think that's a -- that's something that hasn't been sort of cut out, i think, a lot. and talked about in a sort of bigger picture of the revolutionary war and what these men thought and how they experienced it. >> and that's fascinating. >> mostly they care and they just want to eat. >> right, well, what you said you've been reading up on, as they've encountered in your reading. in the chat, what books should be read. >> exiles, and i think i saw that pop up in the chat. and literature, like -- william

allen loyalists, helped to frame my understanding of loyalism as a graduate student, but there's a lot of good new literature and i would suggest reading anything from this book, too. >> also, one book, a relatively new book and i think this ties in, also, to the new direction of loyalists is something we haven't talked much about, the issue of william loyalists and there's one new book about women loyalists an area where much more could be done. being a woman of that time, and married women at that time were not given any kind of political rights or identity of their own, so i think that gets us into all kinds of interesting questions. what does it mean for a woman to be a loyalist, or can a woman to be a loyalist if she's not allowed multiple choices. i think that could be more

study and addressed with some of these issues. >> and also, on loyalists, that may be-- maybe mistaken. >> yes, right, yes, you're right. >> eileen, your book is what patrick is referring to, or do you have another one coming out? >> that book doesn't-- i talk in one chapter about the loyalists, i think the one i'm working on is the one, but it's not done yet. >> and as soon as we get that info, we'll send it out to folks if they're interested. well, gosh, you guys in the chat are giving us amazing, amazing questions and i think that this is just-- it might be a hard one to answer and i know we only have a few hot seconds before i have my last question for our panelists, but alan coming back at you with a great one. it's a doozy, what do you think

the psychological effects were on the loyalists being banished from the clonists? >> and i think that loyalists varied how they dealt with being banished. you mentioned thomas hutchinson. i think he suffered. he was never really happy in england. he wanted to go home. he spent his time trying to justify what he did so i think it had a very detrimental psychological effect on him. he felt like he had lost his home, but i think that -- talking about how a lot of the loyalists are resilient and ways to adapt to being exiled and find new life and take ideas we consider american and take them into the other areas and to the rest of the british empire. >> i would agree. i think that there were a lot

of loyalists to relocate from, say, new york, new jersey, to canada, took enormous pride in themselves. to the day there are a lot of people in ontario being descendents of loyalists and anglo canadians, we're the one that are considered-- for instance, enslaved people, the removal from what becomes the united states is not necessarily a trauma, it's in many cases, it's literal liberation, physical and spiritual liberation and the chance to start a new life. not to say that it's going to be easy for them. it wasn't. >> and around about the closing question because it's a big one. what about the loyalists haven't we talked about that people should know? >> that so many of them just--

they're kind of -- they didn't have the wherewithal to speak out in their little communities. a lot of them, position, the minister in that time, very well-restricted man, able to toe the line between his parishioners who were patriots and loyalists and because he was such a respected man in the community, he was left alone and i think that story, you know, community bonds sometimes overrode the larger consideration, so, you know, that history gets lost. >> well, i guess what i would say, we've sort of alluded to this, but i guess i would want more emphasis on this, just the way that the loyalists were treated. you know, we talked about they were exiled and their property confiscated, but in fact, they were mistreated in much more severe ways. they were toward each other and

other kinds of cruel ways. i think that's important to bear that in mind. to understand more about the loyalists and the revolutionary and see the limitations of the revolutionaries and cover the loyalists. >> i would have to agree with suzie and eileen. and he was one of the few who managed to negotiate this conflict, but there were, for instance, clergymen who were terribly mistreated and lost everything and they-- and were faced with, you know, beatings or torture and they absolutely refused to give in. and as, you know, as americans in a republic, we see them as the bad guys, but their stories of extraordinary moral courage that, i think, need to be told, and you know, as kind of dissent when sometimes the majority is wrong, maybe should

be covering the stories and see them as american heroes. >> just recently reading the state of boston and he actually starts to reformulate a little bit, to push back on some of the history with the patriots, so, sam adams in his book comes out as really kind of a thug and you know, he-- the first of these awful things to happen to the loyalists, you know, it's kind of give and take. >> we are at the end of our day and there's so much more to talk about, thank you so much, and hope to see you back here soon. thank you, everyone. >> university of south carolina professor patricia sullivan talked about the 1960 civil rights movement and role that martin luther king, jr. and bobby kennedy played. and areas, such as watts and detroit and the subsequent

formation of the kerner commission. >> at the hearing room the end of six weeks of these remarkable exploration of the issues and the problems. kennedy, i mean, spent time in chicago and say it was the first time he'd experienced the grinding poverty, exploitation and despair that reveiled in urban neighborhoods. king and his family moved into the west side of chicago and lived as a member of the community and really felt there was an uprising that summer while they were there so he really felt it in a way that just accelerated his efforts. he -- he observed, again and king on vietnam. he's careful not to take the attention off of the issue of racial equality and the problems and many problems they're facing in these hearings, he observed that the

johnson administration spent liberally on a war in vietnam where american security was not at stake and he questioned the wisdom of a conflict justified by the reactionary regime and this is a famous quote from king, the bombs of vietnam exploded home, destroying the hopes and possibilities of decent americans, meanwhile, he said, the war on poverty was scarcely a skirmish. at no time has a total coordinated and fully adequate program conceived. kennedy asked king and interesting back and forth between the two of them, asking him what he saw and the extent of poverty and alienation was understood outside of the ghetto areas, and that the people really understand that, not at all. said king. the problem, as you know, he told kennedy is that they're often invisible. thoughts unknown, words

unheard, feelings unfelt. and kennedy conceded that lack of understanding that was in these communities was deeply troubling and deep concern where the factors would lead the united states. riots, king famously warned, in the final analysis, turned out to be the language of the unheard. >> watch the full program online anytime at c-span.org/history. ♪♪ weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's story and on sundays, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 comes from these television companies and more, including cox. >> homework can be hard, but squatting in a diner for internet work is even harder. that's why we're providing

lower income students access to affordable internet so homework can just be homework. cox, connect to compete. >> cox, along with these television companies support c-span2 as a public service. ... really excited to welcome yoo this evening performance and talkback of meet james >> i'm excited to look into this performance and talk back of meet james forman. exciting play by the museum. kalela williams who i'm joined by is a fatter black history, longtime collaborator with the museum in her living history projects, and after the performance i'm going to vacate my seat and give it up to mike edris whose the lifelong philadelphian who