tv Book TV in Pueblo CO CSPAN October 1, 2016 12:00pm-1:01pm EDT
>> when people say the name rockefeller in the early 20th century, i think before ludlow i don't think there's as much of an acknowledgment of him. from my perspective, he doesn't necessarily -- his ownership in cs and i is not necessarily widespread throughout the region. after 1914 it's a dirty word. it was the main company, it was also victor american as well. pueblo was considered the pittsburgh of the west, so we're talking about almost all of southeastern colorado from the colorado to mexico border all the way to pueblo, so 100 miles that way and probably 100 miles across. so definitely controlling this portion of the state, and then their coal and their steel is going -- [inaudible] outside of here. the early 1900s in southern colorado it's more of the growth of industry in the united
states, i think, but the cs and i companies which are the coal mines in pueblo start to reflect this story of immigration, people coming from throughout the world -- greece, italy, poland, other slovakian countries. also migration north from mexico, migration from new mexico, african-americans coming from the south. so there's a large mixture of different ethnic and migrant groups as well. as they start controlling the area economically, some of the things i look at specifically is they'll say, okay, new mexicans or the hispanics are living in a adobe houses, they really should be live anything wood structures. so they'll build coal camps that are wood structureses, but then the employees can't heat their houses in the same way because the adobes had kept the heat in better than the wood paneling, so they'll charge -- so the employees really now have to start using coal from what they're mined, but they end up paying cost for the coal. it's not like they get an employee discount. their tons are measured at different rates.
so if 2,000 pounds is a ton, the foreman or the weighers might say 2600 pounds is a ton because there's rock mixed in with that coal. or in order to mine, you have to dig into the mine, but you don't get paid to dig into the mine, you just get paid for the coal you pull out. so there's definitely this what i would label an abuse of economics from capital-based -- [inaudible] saying the work that you're doing isn't valued or we're not going to pay you for all of these different things you're doing. when you go into a coal mine, there's timbers that have to be laid, and there's all these safety precautions, but they're not getting paid for any of that. they're also then, they live in houses. the company's really nice and, you know, they rent them the homes, and they'll take it out of their paycheck. then it ends up being a problem later on because, actually, they're charging them more than they should have for the houses. so there's definitely an issue as far as housing and as far as how much they're getting paid for coal. there's issues in regards to
sometimes there's coal camp guards, sometimes there's barbed wire fences around the coal mining communities. they're told that they have to shop in the company store. they'll get credit from the company store, but then it becomes this cycle of debt where they're also always beholden to the company because they economically can't get out of the rut. and at time there's not a lot of mine production, they're going to maybe still stay in the company house, but they're going to have to pay rent, and when they come back to work, they owe the company money. you'll have fathers and kids and more kids, so you'll have generations of people that are in the mine. they'll buy the majority of stock in the early 1900s, the rockefellers, and hold a large interest until the 1940s. that's almost 40 years. the rockefellers become very prominent in 1914 because of the ludlow massacre. the ludlow massacre starts off in september of 1913 as a mine strike, and when the miners go on strike, they're evicted from
their company-owned houses, they're sent out onto the plains of colorado, and they set up a tent colony funded by the united mine workers. and they're basically fighting for 2,000 pounds is a ton, they're fighting for it to be paid in dollars, they're fighting to be able to have safer working conditions. 1913 is one of the deadliest years for mine disasters in the history of colorado. so there's a push for them to have better working conditions. everything that they're asking for is called a mine safety law, so they're not asking for anything outside of what should have been given to them. when they go on strike, the governor of the state of colorado calls out the national guard. there's questions as far as who actually funds it. there's a group of depp very businessmen who will -- denver businessmen who will buy insurrection bonds. the miners, who are
predominantlith nick minority -- predominantly ethnic minority group, they think that the national guard is coming to protect them, and what they find is more of this idea of martial law. in april of 1914 there's a, it's greek easter, and so people in the camp actually celebrate for the greek miners. and then there's a baseball game that's going on, and one of the national guardsmen actually comes onto the field with three or ow four national be guardsmen and tries to interrupt the game and says you'll have your roast today, we'll have our roast tomorrow. so on the morning of april 20th, 1914, shots are fired. and hen the national guard -- and then the national guard starts attacking the camp, and the miners respond. they'll shoot into the tents. by the end of day, they'll light kerosene to the coal camp or to the tent colony. there's a tent seller that a group of -- tent cellar that a group of women will climb into,
11 children and 4 women. and that's really what ends up making the ludlow massacre this huge mark on national labor history and national history, because when word spreads of the ludlow massacre, it's not just the fact that men are killed at the ludlow massacre, it's these women and children die. southern colorado, for the next ten days, there'll be a war where minders will come and attack law enforcement. it only ends whenwood row will withson calls out -- woodrow wilson calls out federal troops to stop it. that's when the rockefellers start getting involved. they knew what was going on. the minutes from the meeting from september 13, basically, no business happened. we didn't meet. eventually, the rockefellers decide to deal with it. there's congressional hearings where the rock fellers say we're just stock owners, we don't know what's going on out there. even though they had on telegram what was going on. and in 1950, john rockefeller
jr. will come out and with an industrial presentation plan. and his idea is, one of the things he tells the employees, he says we're like a three-legged stool, right? there's the parts, and there's you guys as the employees, and there's me as the stock owners, but we're really kind of the same people, and we've never really made any money, so we're kind of in the same boat as you guys. so he comes to pueblo first. and i think it's not necessarily -- the documents don't reflick -- reflect it as much in 1915. but in 1918 rockefeller comes back, and he tries to speak at the building, at the dedication of the ludlow memorial. united mineworkers president, frank hayes, actually walks out to rockefeller's car and tells him to turn around. he says you're not welcome here, i cannot guarantee your safety. but i thought rockefeller thought he would be welcomed because what happens when he comes to pueblo because the steel mill was less involved in ludlow massacre.
but they would actually come and meet with him, and the idea was you want a union, i'll give you a union, it's just going to be a company-sponsored union. so all of the pr from the time is that it's great and wonderful. there's not a lot of documents talking about the backlash of it. but the united mine workers will have these ludlow days where people march the ludlow massacre to remember it. so in southern colorado the story lives on in the memories of family members and in the minds of the mine workers, but as far as the official history as rock feller comes and he's welcomed. but you have these little spots where it's clear that he's not. but i think because he's going to go -- it's not all of the miners come together and have a meeting. he might go to starkville, or he'll go to camp, he'll go to hopedale in florence. so then there's less, they're less able to really protest him. it's new york city9 that's protesting him, but here it's the year after it happens. again, it's company-held meetings with employees within
the structure of the company, so there's not a lot of space for them to be upset with him. does that a make sense? there's also then a series of letters at the rockefeller archives where they have families that are living in mining camps that will actually write him letters asking him for money for bandstands. he actually will donate to a church in the area. so i have this issue where sometimes john d. rockefeller jr. total jerk and knew what was happening at ludlow, could have avoided it, but i also have moments of thinking that he didn't know how bad the situation was. but i also think that there was such a difference between his perspective of the nation the miners' perspective of the nation. for him, i mean, he's living in a mansion in new york city, and these miners are living in squalor in southern colorado. so there's this huge disconnect between them, and there's also a language disconnect as well for a lot of them. some of the programs he
implements are the ymca. so it's funny because this last year's been, like, the 100th anniversary of the ymca in pueblo which only came because of pueblo. it's huge, and there's this great partnership. there's a report, the ymca does a report on all of these coal mines which is great for documentation, but it a basically gives suggestions on how to improve the camps. one of them specifically is bathhouses for the men. there's also gymnasiums built with bowling alleys, there's basketball courts, reading rooms for women that also implement camps. so ll be summer camps that'll be held for the kids. there's one specifically talked about, stonewall. there's field days that are kind of occurring already, but this is the official implementation of them, usually in the summer they're held at all of the different mining camps in colorado. they'll have competitions. i've looked more at the women's competitions, so they'll have,
like, a nail-driving contest -- i think it's men making fun of women that they can't drive nails as great as they can. they'll have a heaviest woman competition, so actually weigh the women, and whoever the is the heaviest -- it's a public weighing, and whoever is the heaviest women will win her weight in flour. they'll have a -- whoever has the most children and the camp doctor has to sign a paper for the woman, whoever has the most children this that camp, and she'll win shoes for all her kids. for the men, they'll have first aid competitions basically showing if there was a mining accident, they could actually be able to patch everybody up. they'll have baseball competitions and basketball. baseball kind of becomes more implemented in more of a year-round activity. it's seen both by the company and by the employees as something that's definitely beneficial. i argue this is kind of the process of americanization and baseball being the key and the symbol of americanization. so one of the things that
happens with the employee representation plan is the idea of if you get hurt, then you can come, you know, with you and your representative, we can talk about how you got hurt. most of those incident reports they find it's always the fault of the employees. so the company union is, a basically, flawed. and you'll see it specifically because there'll continue to be mine strikes in southern colorado. you'll have another mine strike in 1927-'28. so the idea that his employee representation plan doesn't work. he will actually go and give speeches throughout the united states and also into canada about how great his plan is and that you don't have to have, you know, the socialist unions, you could have a company union to make it successful. i mean, no, it doesn't work. it's a way for the rockefellers to try to save a face and say these are the things that we're doing to improve our situations with the camp. but most of these people stay in a system of -- [inaudible] it's also this idea of, again, it's generations and generations of family members.
for the people who work at cs and i, i think the big shift is world warm ii. a lot of them will go to war, come back and be able to get their associate's degree and get work as an electrician or the beginnings of computer programming. so that kind of shifts it for them to be able to leave the coal mines and maybe work in the steel mill. but nothing really changes, i would argue nothing really changes after the ludlow massacre with the employee representation plan. it's a good idea, but implementation doesn't actually occur. i think this is still the question we ask today. there's still issues with coal mining. the united mine workers are still fighting for pensions for employees. i mean, i, it was last week i met with a retired coal miner who had been in the mines for 43 years, and he has black lungs. for him, he gets this great pension, but he also has this condition that's never going to be treated. so for them -- the scars of what
the coal miners live with long term is still an issue that's faced in our nation, that's still a discussion that we're having, right? and that just becomes part of the presidential debates as far as how do we use our raw materials, how do we use our mineral resources, right? and then we still have mines collapsing in west virginia. there was, when we had the huge incident in chile where there was the gold mines and, you know, the phoenix came in and rescued all of these people, 39 miners that were rescued, the next week there was a mine collapse in west virginia that didn't even make the headlines. so i think the cost of coal still is weighing on our nation. i just don't think we're dealing with it. the ludlow massacre forced the nation to deal with it. but if we're still having these same discussions 100 years later. >> booktv is in pueblo to learn about the city's history and its literary culture. while here we interviewed csu pueblo professor matt harris to talk about the founding fathers
and religion. >> we often here in the media that -- or hear in the media that the culture wars especially with religion began in the 1980s with ronald reagan and that the moral majority and the folks who were instrumental in bringing him to office. one of the things i learned was that there's always been a conflict with religion and the role that it should play in public life. and during the founding generation, i was amazed at how -- this conflict that emerged very clearly. most of the founders believed that religion was necessary in order to prop up the new democracy or new nation they created. so absolutely religion was incredibly important to most of these founders. really one of the only things these guys could agree on in terms of what religious liberty meant was that there shouldn't be a state-sponsored religion which is part of the first amendment, but also that americans should be able to freely exercise their religious beliefs. but beyond that, there's a whole host of differences in the first amendment in terms of what it
meant and why they included it. james madison was like his contemporary jefferson, thomas jefferson, both virginians, and they had fought against established religions in the revolution just in the 1780s, and madison was responsible in 1785 for creating a bill in virginia called -- or a pamphlet, and then his colleague, jefferson, later wrote a bill for religious freedom in which they argued that religion's a natural right and that you can freely believe what you want to believe or not believe anything at all. and so these two virginians were instrumental in trying to separate church from state. and you see the first amendment is a reflection on jefferson and madison's efforts during those debates in the revolution -- in the virginia legislature. and so it really bears their imprint that they think that the church and state ought to be on two sides of the fence. having said that though, if you
look back at the 1770s and '80s, really it was kind of a novel idea at the time because religion just permeated everything these guys did; writing their state constitutions, they were writing -- you had to believe in the bible or the god in order to hold public office. so that was kind of the sort of thing they were fighting against, that let's not do that sort of thing. let people believe what they want to believe, and if they're fit for public office, the public will decide what that fitness is. but let's not make them pledge, you know, belief in something. they didn't like religious dogma, but they did recognize that religion was a vital role in the nation's founding. religion's interesting, they didn't talk a lot about religion at the constitutional convention. in fact, one of the only things they sid was that -- they said was that you didn't have to hold public office, or you didn't have to believe in the bible or some form of christianity to hold public office. there'd be no religious litmus test, which is really interesting. and, of course, that met with a lot of pushback, because a lot of people argued that christians
were the only ones fit for public office. so they didn't talk about religion a lot because i think they understood how divisive it was. and a lot of the folks who were there were strong personalities who wanted to separate church and state. and some of the more committed christians, i guess you would say, like patrick henry, if he were there at the convention, he didn't go, but if he did go, almost certainly he wouldn't have agreed on some of the final outcome of the convention. he would have insisted there was some education presentation of christianity -- expression of christianity in the final document. for example, in the -- before they wrote the constitution, many states had what are called establishments of religion. and so if you were, living in new england in the 1700s, your tax dollars would support the congregational church which is
sort of a brand of puritanism. you really didn't have a choice. you'd pay your taxes, and it would support a local congregational church. if you lived in virginia, your tax dollars would support the local anglican church. and so patrick henry and others like him believed that if you remove that government support, that somehow the churches would crumble, that they wouldn't exist, that people wouldn't want to pay and support them on their own. but yet patrick henry and his virginia neighbors, madison and jefferson, believed something the exact opposite, that religion would still flourish because people would see the need for faith. and you wouldn't need government to impose those mandates. they would just happen naturally, as jefferson wrote. and so you can see that sort of religious conflict even in the earliest debates when they were talking about the constitutional convention. was there a topic that was heavily as debated as religion, the answer is, yes. i mean, religion didn't govern
them front and center at the constitutional convention, but it would be later on during the ratification campaign when the constitution was finished in september 1787. it went out to each of the states for ratification where the states would vote in these special conventions if they wanted to support the new constitution. and they had to have nine states' support, so it didn't have to be man now. not all -- unanimous. not all thirteen, just nine. religion was a big issue because a lot of these anti-federalists as they became, as they were called -- these were the folks that opposed the constitution -- they saw that the constitution was silent with respect to religion, and it really, really bothered them. and be so they proposed a litany of amendments right from the get go acknowledging jesus christ as creator lord, acknowledging the governor of the universe, asking to include a phrase in the constitution that acknowledges the bible as the holy, infallible word of god and that sort of thing. and so it didn't get anywhere,
but yet they tried. well, i think that there was a strong belief just as there is now that this is a christian nation and, of course, the devil's always in the details with a statement like that. what does that mean? does that mean that a number of us are christians in this country if we count? does that mean that we should give, we should privilege be christianity? and if so, which version of christianity should we privilege? and i think that at the founding there were people who thought that this was a christian nation from the very get go in the early 17th century when the first europeans settled here, and they wanted to acknowledge that christianity in our founding documents. and so i think that was a real issue for people like patrick henry and samuel adams of massachusetts, roger sherman of connecticut and some other vocal christians whom we would call founding fathers. my students often ask me, they say, well, why does it matter if we characterize this as a christian nation or a secular
founding? why does it matter? who cares? and apart from the fact we want to try to get the history right even though it's very, you know, highly controversial in some respects, but it does matter because our publicking policy debates are tied into this understanding of the founding. if we think that this is a christian founding, then we're more likely to support a law that states that we can pray in a classroom, public school room or that we can give tax dollars to private religious schools. if we think it's a secular founding, then we're more likely to oppose tax dollars to religious schools or saying prayers at football games or convocation ceremonies. and so those questions are historical questions, and they do matter because of our connection to public policy today. i think most people in this country recognize, like the founders did, that religion has a role to play, that it's codified in the u.s. constitution, the first amendment. but yet when we start talking about limitations on religious
beliefs, you know, limiting muslims from coming here or excluding some religious group from public office because you don't like what their church teaches or something, that's really where you're getting into rough water with the constitution, because it's very, very clear that we're not supposed to impose a litmus test on these people. when joseph lieberman was running with al gore as the vice president in the election of 2000, a lot of people said, you know, can we have a jewish man on this ticket? well, if you believe in the constitution, of course you can, right? when mitt romney ran in 2012, can we have a mormon? well, of course you can if you believe in the constitution. and when the constitution says there's no religious litmus test, that's what it means. presumably, we could have an atheist, we could have any number of religious beliefs hong hong -- among these people. the whole idea was americans in theory wouldn't judge them on
their religious beliefs, they would judge them on their fitness for office, their politics. but religion shouldn't play a role in whether we elect somebody or not. sadly, it does. one of the things i learned about writing this book with my co-author, thomas kidd, is that religion was very contentious during the founding generation just as it is today. so the question is, would they be shocked at the disagreements that we have today and the conflict that we experience today in public spaces? i don't think so at all, because they experienced it themselves. we've always had these challenges in our nation, and sad to say we probably always will because religion's such aty vice are i topic. device arive -- divisive topic. >> booktv is in pueblo, colorado, learning more about the city's literary seen. up next, we talk about "mountain mafia" which chronicles the history of the mafia right here in pueblo.
>> you know, you think of the mafia as always being in new york or l.a., and certainly pueblo was connected with these. in fact, pueblo was known as little chicago. so the mafia was big here. the black hand, as it was originally called. it started with italian immigrants coming over into colorado to work in the coal mines in the southern part of the state or to work in the steel mill here in pueblo. and they were actually recruited. the steel mill didn't have enough men, is and so ads were sent out all over the united states, and that that drew the people here. and the black hand, which was basically extortion, came with them. most of them had, as we say, a lot of them farmed, many of them owned various saloons as they were called then, nightclubs around town, out on the mesa. some of them were businessmen. for example, one of the bars was
between santa fe and main street on 7th street was owned by charlie blanda. at that time it was called the holiday inn. not like the hotel chain. but this was a bar that most of us as kids knew that it was there. could see the people going in and out. they were legitimate businessmen. some of them had machines that dispensed candy, etc. see, this was a time, this was a different period of time. i can remember going to the grocery store as a young child where they would have what was called punchboards where you could pay a penny, and you could stick a little knife thing through one of the holes, and you might win something. but usually you didn't win anything. but this was basically a form of gambling. no one ever said you're a kid, you can't do this. i can remember all of us did this. but it was a small town.
i grew up here, and, you know, it was 50,000 people. everybody knew everybody. as we used to say, you couldn't sneeze without somebody saying bless you. so it was an interesting town and, obviously, you had different groups of people and different levels of income. you had the wealthier, and you had the other people who were poorer. like any town. but it was a nice place to be, i think. so the mafia didn't just prey on ordinary citizens walking along street. there were two factions here that really came during prohibition. were the dan nass, four brothers, and the carlinoss two brothers, and they were fighting for control of the sale of liquor in the southern part of the state. and one of the famous instances was shootout over the baxter
river out east of pueblo on the bridge that crossed the arkansas. the dannas had the advantage. the carlinos were coming across from the lower part. two of the carlino people were killed and, again, i need to qualify that a little. when you talk about a mafia family, it wasn't just the dannas and carlinos, it was all of their immediate relatives, in-laws and friends that were together in this. anyway, the shooting went on for at least four hours, over 500 shots were fired. one side ran out of bullets and had to send back to pueblo for more ammunition. the result was two of the damna men were arrested -- danna men were arrested. when they went to trial, it was just before christmas. and be in the book, we have the lawyer's plea, how could you arrest these two farmers who are only making their living on the land and leave their families at
christmas without their fathers? the trial actually lasted five days. the jury debated 28 hours, and it was a hung jury. so eventually the dannas were to be try again, but nothing ever happened. it just disappeared. obviously, when the two carlinos take over pueblo with bootlegging, they have all liquor, but there wasn't much population in southern colorado. a lot of booze, no people to buy it. so they decide to go to denver to challenge joe roma, known as little caesar. he was about five foot tall. he's doing the bootlegging in denver. shortly after they get up there, sam carlino has his house blown up, and then he's killed by one of his own men, a young man from aguilar named power row, is the years old -- mauro. this scares pete, so he goes east to cleveland, to new york to stay there with the people he knows there.
but eventually he comes back to pueblo or to the mesa and the denver police find out about it, and they arrest him and take him up to denver and put him in jail. $5,000 bail. now, this is a mafia head from pueblo. he has $47 in his pocket when he's arrested. here he is in jail. who's going to bail him out? joe roma. joe roma comes, pays the bail. there's a picture in our book of the two of them shoulder to shoulder, arm around each other, and joe says, oh, you know, he is a good friend of mine. ..
marijuana or drugs in general. the people who sell that are selling the same way you and i do so the some degree the mafia provided a service, they sold the booze, the legitimate people bought. i have a close friend whose father owned a barbershop on union avenue which at that time is the place to go, the riverwalk but when i was young you didn't go down on union
avenue. whiskers, the underboss for all the others, very interesting man, used to go in to get his haircut and this friend of mine who was a kid at the time, a penny, you could buy a bag of candy for a penny and what he remembers is he was just a good customer that came in regularly and always gave the kid the penny, they were just family men. they had a different job. most people who read the mafia book, even the kids, would be very upset, intrigued by what their family had been. i received a call one night from
a gentleman in california named sam carlino. that can't be sam carlino, sam is dead. he was the grandson, someone had sent him the book and he said i had always been told my grandfather died of pneumonia. i did not know he had been shot until i read your book. for most of the people it was kept undercover and they were good neighbors with other people, that is what we try to show here or say. it was the business of crime, a very profitable business. >> host: if you lived. >> during booktv's recent visit to pueblo we spoke with colorado state university history professor judy gone about the way murder was viewed in the roman republic.
>> people's concept of the word murder is different depending on who those people are, people who are professionals in the law know the difference between murder and homicide was one thing i deal with in my book is the question of terminology and how we use murder, technically are different. it doesn't mean it is justified or unjustified. murder is in the united states a criminal act. if you kill someone intentionally with malicious intent, then that qualifies as murder. once -- my book explored the question of murder in the roman
republic, mostly as i was looking at the development of public law i couldn't find murder, i couldn't find specific acts related to murder, for example poisoning, and kill someone or commit theft. specific acts were punishable in roman courts by the labor public, punishable in roman court but they are not murder per se. why is murder not a crime? we expect that. what makes it a criminal act?
crime is closely connected with the state. the definition i am using of crime is not just -- it is an act the state is interested in, the legislation we passed, we can punish people who do wrong to the united states, that is criminal law, the category of public law so the roman state is interested in certain offenses that end up in somebody's desk but not interested in murder per se, not interested in should we put on trial someone who has killed someone, that is not the question, the theory i propose in my book about why the romans are not interested in murder per
se is there is not that much in the state, so the state doesn't have enough of an entity to make killing someone of interest. it gets a little more complicated than that so there are a couple other issues at stake. the father in the roman family has what we call the right of life and death over his children. and this is for the most part not practiced but ideologically the father has the power to kill his children. the roman state is conceived of as being a community of fathers of the family. even the senators in rome are known as fathers.
that power belongs to individual fathers who are obligated as roman citizens to make sure people under their authority are behaving appropriately. if the state were to take over the rules about killing that diminishes the role of the father in the family. the question is what do we do with fathers who don't have any living fathers, nobody who has authority over them within the family and how do you treat their misbehavior or acts of homicide, and two answers to the question. one of them is much of the roman
republic, very little primary sources, we have, the romans are not asking this question of themselves so we don't get them directly dealing with this problem. they are interested in government and big things like war not so much ordinary everyday life so very little evidence for ordinary people interacting. so what that means for the question about how these things are actionable in a broken court, we could get snippets of information, one of them is arbitration, agreement made to find a third party, the family of the person murdered, the person who murdered them or killed them and the third-party
who will arbitrate a dispute, we know there is arbitration in rome but very limited in how much we know about it so it may be that gets resolved by arbitration. the other issue is we do see when senators are involved, people of higher class are involved in offenses, killing, poisoning, stabbing, we get more involved because the state is made up of senators, senators police each other in a way, in a personal way. so that, sometimes what we do have is people of upper-class coming into public courts and being tried for offenses like
poisoning. it is very interesting in how the romans end up creating permanent courts to try offenses because for a long time they don't have permanent courts so they -- it is not until the middle of the second century at 149 that we get the first standing permanent court in rome, and that is on extortion which only senators can commit in the provinces but after that a couple are connected, among these, poisoning becomes an offense. poisoning is an offense because there are several instances a little earlier in the second century of supposedly mass poisoning cases, romans are
suffering from plague and i panicked about what is going wrong, and they find women making potions, and people are dying, among the people who die are members of the senate and chief magistrates of rome so everyone gets suspicious because the roman don't think everyone died of natural causes. anyone ties, who killed him? they go around making potions and they say, women say we are just trying to help and they say drink it your self and the women drink it and die what happens is the state does take an interest because the people involved are
senators, the whole army is in a state of confusion because people are dying. the reason for the involvement of the state is not that someone has committed murder but the state is no longer able to function because of what is going on, and try to find all sorts of ways, not just the poisoning trial but also they try to look at their sacred books to see if anything is being done wrongly, other ways to deal with it, one way to deal with it is they put people on trial for poisoning and we get a permanent poisoning court, when the romans change their mind, about when killing becomes murder, still haven't quite figured out, my suspicion is that occurs in the early empire,
and transition from a republic where there are numerous senators who have authority and affluence over each other but then transition to an imperial form of government and more centralized government in the form of the monarch, not that they want to be called monarch but the emperor, one of the main reasons i got involved in this question of the relationship between murder and state and why it is important for understanding the roman republic, when i was getting my dissertation, basically a paragraph of what grew into this book. with romans during the monarchy
seems to have a law about martyr, and the reason there is not a law for murder, if evidence is accurate, there was a law in the monarchy, one of the main differences, the nature of government and centralization of government, during the monarchy you have one person in charge of government. and what the king says goes. you still have a monarch who is the ultimate authority. the nature of authority changes. the limitations on the right to
kill our away to look at how power works in the republic. it is diffuse. it belongs to individual countries, individual fathers of the family. and then it is gone, not like the monarch. and belongs to senate. and they are individual people with their own individual desires, there is a close connection between the ability to control whether someone gets to live or die but the centralization of the state. the reason it is easy in the united states is because of the
strength of bureaucracy, you have a supreme court, you have just -- bureaucratic elements of governing, the institutes of various sorts where the bureaucracy remains in place even though the political person in charge changes and the romans bring their own people bring them along when they change. that makes it less stable and away, the last 500 years. >> you are watching booktv on c-span2. this weekend we are visiting pueblo, colorado to talk with local authors and toward literary sites with the help of local cable partner comcast.
state university professor juan morales talks about his life as a hispanic american in colorado. >> take the middle-aged man in an albuquerque laundromat, boasted of his 15th generation spanish heritage held entr'actes of land, held claim in new mexico or spain, don't remember which. when i tell him my parents never taught me spanish he instructed me with a condescending clique of the tongue to learn. his tone was enough to read my face, when i implicate myself with awkward conjugation and repeated phrase -- thinking about it now, we can associate ourselves with one side and deny the concord half. when i look back i have always been a writer. started as a kid turn alling but i was never aware, one of those surprise wizard of oz moments.
and started taking creative writing classes and fell in love with it. and born in iowa city, my father was in the military 31 years, and after he retired moved outside fort carson and colorado springs, so i grew up on the south side of colorado springs, we were about half chicano, latino, mexican-american, hispanic, whatever terms you want to use and the other half -- living in pueblo has been culturally rich, so you can hear spanish regularly, it is ingrained in our food and
culture here. the arkansas river was originally the border for mexico back in the day. you can see the cultural roots. i definitely would argue pueblo is the northernmost point of the american southwest so for that reason growing up latino, chicano here, also with the history, with a lot of other poets and historical movement in the steel mill, those things make it easy to be culturally proud of. whether it is texas, new mexico, arizona and the southwest, my family stories, culture and heritage are important subject matters that i explore. the first book, friday and the
years that follow was born out of stories sitting at the coffee table with my parents and hearing these crazy ghost stories, and my father was in the army for 31 years, two tours in vietnam and fought in the korean conflict and receive two purple hearts. my mother tells a great story about surviving up cataclysmic earthquake in ecuador, all these stories i felt this panic for a moment saying these stories need to be told and preserved, who is going to do it? why not me? when i was 14 and asked if we had indian blood, no. even then i didn't believe her. she didn't understand why it mattered, i didn't consider how
concealing protected her growing up in ecuador. my second book the second world continues where that left off, i started writing poetry about my insecurity, not speaking spanish very well. that was an important part of my cultural heritage. the idea not being bilingual, the shame and reservations that come with it. i wanted to tell similar stories about my heritage but incorporate myself, stories about going to puerto rico, ecuador, when i visit those places, when i am here at home in colorado or the us i am culturally diverse. an interesting paradox. there has been a lot of conflict with the identity of being a
chicano or latino or however you identify yourself, like one of the newer terms is latin, i think the brown berets and chicano movement energized a lot of mexican americans, hispanics and latinos to be more politically active and have their voices heard, echoing what the civil rights movement has done for the african-american community. there was -- the chicano movement, have reminded people your voices can and should be heard. when it comes to the current political climate there is a lot of good intentions out there, where people don't mean to exclude groups of people and so forth but people do it inevitably. we are standing under a bridge, there has to be strong intention
towards inclusion and remembering our mistake, the good parts of our history, for example i think a lot of us can agree building a wall to the south of us is an absurd notion that does not speak a message of peace or inclusion and you want to have solidarity with great movement like black lives matter because they are doing important work and history caused so many mistakes and wrongs that there has to be some way for people to get a voice back. forgive the native whose sins, smother origins in denial, these are the adapted habits before i knew how to track a pin into words. i think about confusion on a line drawn in the sand knowing it will all be erased by a rising tide and i turn again to
pass together and skin we wish to crawl out of but have to accept it as a gift. >> for more information on booktv's recent visit to pueblo and many other destinations on our cities tour go to c-span.org/citiestour. >> i cannot think of a more apropos story than that one that described how people -- you had a reporter from wilmington, indiana, who went out of her way to find christian mom and pop shop she could stereotype. they were -- that was basically allowing people to say if you own a business, that is fine.
if you don't want to violate your religious conscience there are limitations, people think it is a free for all, there are limitations if you are engaging in discrimination, you will run afoul of the law but if you are sincerely professing your faith and saying on this one instance of a wedding ceremony i don't and to give you my artistic skill or labor or expression that is understandable, this reporter went out of her way and went to a tiny little small town where you have the storefront windows in the middle of the street and it went in and use our crosses on the wall and here it is, the daughter of the proprietor that day, would you cater a gay wedding? the weird thing is there was no actual service done, no money exchanged, it was a hypothetical
question. crystal said we serve gay and lesbian customers every day, a wedding ceremony goes against what we believe is christian so we wouldn't participate in that. i thought the reporter would go to a quick trip or something, can i buy something like a wedding cake or something like that, it is weird they went to a pizza shop. i have gay friends and gay family members, i am from the ozarks, we would never cater a wedding with pizza, these people don't understand our neighbors through a block party in st. louis and had bottle service, no one will cater their weddings with a pizza. that became a big story and this
restaurant, with all this maddening debate they had to close up shop, close their blinds, getting death threats for hypothetical question and it was maddening because not only was it something that never happened, there was no discrimination except discrimination against christian proprietors of a pizza shop. this is more than in issue of whether you are serving a cake at a gay wedding or photographing a gay wedding, take that variable out of it, this is about who owns your labor. can the government come in and say you'd are not fit to determine how you were, when you work, we do. it is about association, we had supreme court decisions and the thing of it is indentured servitude is what this boils down to.
this is indentured servitude. in all these identity politics, this argument is the scary thing about it. the fact you had a reporter that went to a small town and thought someone out to prove the narrative she was building is why people have had it. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> we are joined by author and associate editor of the washington post bob woodward whose most recent book is "the last of the president's men". bob woodward, who is "the last of the president's men"? >> alexander butterfield, one of nixon's deputies, the office adjacent to the oval office for a couple years, in the secrets
and decided to disclose the existence of the secret taping system which provided evidence that led to nixon's downfall and resignation. >> butterfield's wife thinks he did, wanted to tell butterfield, denies that and acknowledges that he was quite upset about the lies and extent to which he was drawn into this web of corruption in the nixon white house, people come out differently, what i'm able to chart with the documents and extensive interviews with butterfield and story never told in detail, various stations of the cross in making that