tv Book TV visits Lawrence KS CSPAN December 16, 2018 9:59am-11:16am EST
tour for her memoir becoming. if you missed any of the segments we've shown you today, or would like to see them again, go to booktv.org. >> c-span launched book tv 20 years ago on cspan2 and since then we've discovered 15,000 authors pending 54,000 hours of programming. 2011 on our interboro interview program to, ruben cartertalked about his wrongful incarceration . >> i'm not the person who you can say i can't do this. i tell people in prison, use this time. this time has been imposed upon you. use this time to better
yourself. if you don't know how to write, use this time to learn how to write. if you don't know how to read,use this time to learn how to read . if you don't have a skill, use this time to learn a skill. >> watch this and all other book tv programs for the past 20 years at booktv.org. type the authors name of the word book in the search bar at the topof the page . >> welcome to lawrence kansas, located in the northeast part of the state, this city was the tipping point between pro-and anti-slavery factions leading up to the civil war . >> .. lawrence was founded on the
principle, and it was founded in conflict. and that kind of characterizes lord. >> we took a driving tour of the city with the story and john predator number terry alton brown. >> john browne thank you for joining us today. or should i say kerry altenbernd interpreter. thanks for joining us for my pleasure. i appreciate it. >> for those of you don't know, who was john brown? >> john brown was an abolitionist. he came to kansas in 1855. 11 of the last time early 1859 and had a major impact on the state. >> how long have you been portraying him? >> started in 2006. >> you were giving new giving new meaning to the term riding shotgun. what do you have? >> this is a period copy which means it was done about the time the originals were done of an 1853 slant reach sharp. this is something john brown would need to carry.
>> where are the three of us going today? >> we're going down around downtown lawrence and then will be taking a few excursion trips to other important sites in lawrence history. >> let's hit the road. >> sounds good. >> tell me about this building. >> it was originally a bank building. jb watkins was an entrepreneur who came to lawrence in the 19th century. he became very wealthy, land speculation, railroad, banking. he built this building. since 1975 i think it's been the headquarters of the douglas county historical society and it is a museum, i county history museum. >> a great place to come in, learn about the history of lawrence including quantrill's raid. >> yes. it was then, the beginning of the civil war but it started before the civil war. in the 1850s.
it drew a lot of people in both sides of the slavery issue come to decide whether kansas would be proslavery not. lawrence was born in 1856 because his headquarters of the free state movement. after the civil war officially began in 1863, william clark quantrill was confederate guerrilla leader had about 400, 450 men into town at dawn on the 21st of august of 1863 and massacred at least 200 men and boys and burn a significant part of the town. it was the worst civilian massacre in the civil war, and it happened right here on downtown lawrence where we are. it was massachusetts street because once was outed by a new england emigrant aid company which was in boston. that's with organized to bring men and supplies at the kansas after the act was signed in 1854.
that open the territory of kansas up to white settlement and started off the problem that became bleeding kansas. prior to that the decision on whether the state would be slave or free was that the congress. the campus act made it a vote of the people which brought people from both sides and that's where the violence came from. >> today what is the massachusetts street? >> it's the main street of downtown lawrence. >> i'm seeing a lot of shops and restaurants and independent businesses. is it the spirit of lawrence, independent business? >> yes. there's been a lot of effort to keep downtown the way it is. >> where are we headed out? >> we're headed towards oak hill cemetery which was founded in 1863 after quantrill's raid. the old cemetery didn't have the space for all the people.
that many people dying it once, you have to really look for places and they wanted to have a nice, beautiful cemetery. >> about how many people who passed at quantrill's raid are buried very near? >> most of them are buried in the cemetery here. there was a mass grave of the ones who couldn't be identified. up here on the right was the grave of judge lewis carpenter who was probably would've been governor of kansas, maybe even president of the united states if he had not been murdered in the raid. up here is, on the right, james lane who was a well-known figure in early kansas history, the first senator from the state. i believe the first that cause lawrence to be massacred by quantrill because he rated a town called roseola in missouri in 1861, and quantrill raids
could be heard calling out, remember roseola during the raid. he escaped. when he heard the noise he jumped out of his window in his nightshirt and hid in a cornfield when they came by. then he hopped on a horse and pursued them although back to missouri. this is the rover barn pecos built in 1858 by joe and emily grover who homesteaded on this land. they were both abolitionists your they were stationmaster on the underground railroad. this was a station on the underground railroad, and escaped slaves stayed in this barn. john brown's most famous rate outside of harpers ferry was the county raid in december of 1858. because a slave who was in kansas legally come he was selling brooms, came to brown
and asked if he could come and help liberate his them because they were about ready to be split up and sent south. he said yes. he and his men went into the account and you liberated 11 slaves, brought them into kansas, up through kansas during the winter. in late january they came here. they stayed in the part at least one night, maybe several nights. accounts very but there was a man living with the grovers who wrote a diary and he wrote letters, document proof at the time what was happening. he mentioned, this may be the most well-documented underground railroad site of the country. >> you are devoting your life these days to telling the story of lawrence, of john brown, of leading kansas. whitey think it's important for people in lawrence to know their history and have a reference but? >> the civil war was a seminal event in american history. it changed america. i've been told that before the
civil war, before lawrence, it was called, people said my country. they were talking about their state, or actually the united states was plural. it was the united states. there were a number of each state was individual. united states as a term was a plural noun. and after that it was singular. it was the united state is, as opposed to our, and that's what the civil war did. lawrence was a player in that. this is a special place. it has a special history and it needs, that needs to be honored and recognized. the more that can be done, the better. >> thank you so much for showing us around lawrence today. >> thank you. it's a privilege. >> i'm on the campus of the
university of kansas with the next we speak with ku professor david farber on his book, "taken hostage" ." >> i think the 1979-1980 hostage crisis between the united states and iran really set the tone probably for our relationship all the way through today. it was a significant juncture . and how the united states as people thought about political islam, the nation of iran and let's be honest, have think about us. they were too powerful movements and iran, both of which worried the united states of one more than the other. there was a communist insurgency within iran. soviet union was trying to foster a communist insurgency in iran. we learned a lot about that and we side with the shaw the rent apart because he crushed that communist dissent in iran. i don't think most american political elites thought too much about the islamic dissidents in that state.
this was off often later. part of the about the book i did called "taken hostage" is trying to get across how reasonably so but narrowly so americans tend to look at our alliances in that part of the world. we didn't really think of islam as as a political force. we feared communism. we cheered on what we thought of as capitalist development. we hoped for democratic development. we just didn't see the islamic, the green revolution that was coming. united states and iran have had a confocal related relationship for longtime really since the 1950s -- complicated -- up until the 1950s iran was kind of a client state of great britain but when world war ii ended and britain look back from its colonial periphery, united states stepped forward. one of the things we did is we became very involved. the iranians would say very, very too much involved in their affairs. most famously in 1953, the united states using its early
much brand-new cia helped engineer a two and iran and that coup put into power the shah of iran who was a good different of the united states. iranian people were too much, those who are pro shah, maybe well-to-do people, more secular oriented people, they tended look favorably upon the united states. its it's predecessor number of r iranians did not look so favorably on the united states and really from that coup forward from 1983 until the islamic revolution in 1979, the were a lot of people in iran looked at the united states and against the phrase would become the great satan, who did not think we had the right to interfere in their internal affairs. it's interesting to think about when the united states relies they did not have a good handle on what's happening in iran. there were were signs in the 1960s. it was really interesting that we had this great relationship with iran in terms of training
their new elite. if you were a bright iranian man or woman, which is what's interesting, man or woman, mostly men, you probably came to a u.s. university. this start in the 1960s. think about that. inc. what's happening in the united states in the 1960s and these young iranians are exposed not just to the wonders of the american university but to the dissidents of the 1960s student movements. this radicalized some iranians. make them think about their own voices and own set of concerns. this was a complication for america's relationship with iran. the shaw of a rented unexpected jump people to come out with a political consciousness. he wanted them to come out wita technocratic consciousness, the oil engineers, doctors. not threats to his regime. the iranian revolution like a most any revolution is a messy affair. it's not clear to those who are revolting what's going to happen.
they would know the in point. they are living through chaos and violence in turmoil and they are all vying for legitimacy. the iranian revolution starts to break out right at the cusp of 1979-1980. 1980. >> was going to take control. there's all kinds of factions. there's a communist faction, a democratic liberal faction, a kind of parliamentary republic action. there's an islamist faction of the once a theocracy, all vying for control. it's not clear who is going to win. they're all trying to find tools for legitimacy. when the ayatollah khamenei returns from exile from france to come back to iran he is treated i think probably as a liberatory figure. it's not clear he will become the theocratic leader. i think he wanted to be the theocratic leader of this country and there are people who were chewing that on your so by the summer of 1979, his faction,
the more islamist faction, , the theocratic faction is gaining power and prominence. but young people in particular were trying to figure out what kind of government did he want to live within. who do they want as their leader? how do they stand up for autonomous iran? you start to see, unfortunately i guess from an american perspective, a decision by some young people to unify the country, they hoped, a trained in a way by creating an external enemy. by unifying the iranian people who are factionalized remember at this time, around one big enemy. we and the united states really almost none of us do develop an i.t. 53 coup. we thought of herself as a benign may be good progressive force for the rainy people. many of them did not see us that way. they had the memory of the coup seared into their minds. this was part of their historical memory.
we are a potential enemy. we are the ones who kept the shah in power, and one to get e military and power. so these students decide, they begin to plan, let's protest against the u.s. embassy. it was feared the u.s. might engineer a a coup, i countertrd to against the growing autonomy of the rainy people. protest begin. keep your hands off our new government. it secular exactly who that government is. one group of students in the midst of many protesting students decide that they are going to make a powerful protest against the u.s. embassy. and again we are still isn't always decades later not 100% sure what happened or who thought what. there's a strong argument to be made that a group of these students, some universities in tehran, , decide he might the african-american civil rights
trial. we will have a senate at the u.s. embassy to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the american governments present in the country. and that kind of witness against american power. when those iranian students decided to make their protest, to witness against power, to possibly hold a sit in, i think all along there were some who knew they were going to go further. what happens is really a catastrophic affair from so many angles. there were thousands of people protesting outside the u.s. embassy. this one group decides, this group of students, to climb the fence to come into the u.s. embassy. maybe to hold a sit in. maybe to do more. and for the american government that wasn't clear what to do even at that moment of crisis. what's the job of the u.s. marine corps who are supposed to security in the sequence it's not a face-off mobs of people. we know this from subsequent
tragedies. you have to count on local governments to protect the international diplomatic immunity of your embassy personnel. the iranian government didn't do that. those students who jumped the barricades, client interviews embassy suddenly realized that kind of had carte blanche to do what they wanted. instead of just sort of a peaceful sit in, very quickly if evolved into a hostagetaking situation in which the americans did not fight back with weapons. they exceeded to this takeover so it would be very short-lived. well, it wasn't short-lived. it was 444 days of seizure of the u.s. embassy. people understood within the u.s. embassy that trouble was brewing in iran. there was a revolution going on. there'd been against a fortified embassy, but you could only do so much. because it was a sense of the was trouble sentiment, use embassy which event a massive
affair with huge numbers of personnel come had come back to only the absolute necessary folks. i think at the moment of the iranian takeover there were 66 people still working at the embassy. this was an embassy that could've had that hundreds of e in it. the people who were there knew they were in a risky position. they knew this was a dangerous post but but i don't think anye expected what would happen to the. this is all occurring in november 1979, almost exactly one year before the 1980 presidential election. so jimmy carter is in what we now know is the final year of his presidency. he knew he was going to run for reelection, so this was a difficult, arguably catastrophic event for his presidential administration. i think when it first happened, when he was first alerted, he was alluded very quickly to what was going on, he probably saw it as an opportunity. so carter was being criticized from several directions, for
economic reasons, political reasons, cultural reasons, foreign policy reasons. as a weak leader. he knew if he is going to get reelected he was going to have to convince the american people that he was strong, that he was capable, and they could take care of america's business. at the very beginning when this took off, carter saw perhaps a chance to show leadership. here were these thugs try to take over a u.s. embassy in the midst of turmoil. carter would show strong leadership. he would negotiate his way out of this and it would be a happy ending. it couldn't have gone worse. so carter did something that in retrospect probably wasn't wise. he can it took upon himself the leadership for solving this what he thought was probably a short-term crisis, and he went out in front. talk to the american people. he certainly instructed his
death the one hands-on responsibility. he was always a man who very much manage the situation before him. he was not at delegator like ronald reagan would be down the road. carter hope that by seizing the stage, taking care of this trouble, the american people would see him as a strong leader. he basically did everything right. that's the irony of this situation. he quickly got hold of the arrangement. he talked to people who he thought were responsible figures in the main cabin. remember again the iranian government is factionalized. it's not exactly clear who was in charge of what. the ayatollah still seen as a figurehead, not a handsome leader. so who exactly to talk to was a riddle for the american government. he quickly got hold of our allies. carter, , he's that kind of min, he kind of step-by-step moves through the process to resolve this issue. what he didn't realize was that there were factions in a van
that did not want to resolve this issue. at this crisis was good for the iranian factions wanting to create islamic state. they wanted to maintain a crisis with the united states. so you've got an american government trying to rational resolve a very unpleasant diplomatic problem, and jeff action within a rent want to foster and inflame this crisis, to gain legitimacy for the islamic action, trying to get total control of islamic iran given at the time. so to make negotiated partners of different interests. in terms of the takeover of the u.s. embassy, religion has always been a factor. there was a strong sense that many of those protesting outside the embassy, manila, it doesn't happen in one day. it takes place over time, that there were strong islamic presence in those protest. again, big faction of the revolutionary movement are
islamic students and all kinds, older folks as well. the united states, government is conscious of that, it doesn't see that as a primary threat. we are still thinking soviet union to where still thinking communist, still thinking the communist party of iran. that's the real fear. iran can become a proxy state of the soviet union. all that oil suddenly under the soviet control. the goal under the control of the soviet union. we never really take the answers as we to come the islamic present. it was there. it was obvious. cia no, national security council new. it wasn't foremost in their minds. so what happens when the students come in? despite the fact they claim it was peaceful, a few of them at least had weapons. so something was off from the beginning about the so-called peaceful and ten. they do though at first sees the
hostages in a sense thinking that might only be a day, or days, a few days. it's not exactly clear what's going to happen. as time goes on and things don't get resolved, decisions are being made in all parts of the iranian government. one decision that is made this kind of fascinating is the iranians decide that because they are good for islamic people, it's not right to keep women as hostages. this is inappropriate. so they give the women members of the delegation right to leave. almost all of them do. there's a couple women love. now they have to make up political decision. they say where in solitary with third world people all of the place. all of the black members of the delegation, they are not our enemies. you are all free to go. several of the marine guards were african-american. so they are allowed to leave. not all take up this allowance. you suddenly go from 66 down to
53. they are playing a political game, and this is done in full view of the cameras. meanwhile, the iranian government is trying to decide what that is going on here. is this good or bad? factions within the government of trying to solve this, but the ayatollahs faction, they see this as useful. i never come these students are one to say we are the students in line with the ayatollah khamenei. so they are his people. the iranian people are responding positive to this. not everyone by any means but a lot of iranians i like him we are showing those americans what for. here we are the one victim of america, now we are in control of america. this gave the ayatollah his faction a lot of credibility, a lot of legitimacy. and so maybe we shouldn't let them go. so suddenly you could still make. varitek quickly, black americans are given their permission to leave if they chose. women are given their permission
to leave if they choose. but the others, no. the inside story of this which is at the moment of takeover, a few american embassy personal escape that great movie that got made by ben affleck and others, so their six i think at this point american to escape arrest to the streets that's a whole nother story. there are hostages escaping, taken root in the canadian embassy. so who are related but others are sitting there blindfolded in squalor at this time not being tortured anything like that, , t by no means been housed comfortably as the days start to take on board. for the american government, it was a really hard set of decisions as to what's the leverage, how do you fix the situation? again, jimmy carter is very methodical thinker in a good sense. he goes through every plausible avenue a of consideration to release the hostages peacefully. we go from diplomatic talks to
sanctions. there's economic sanctions. of course those who play a vital role in donald trump's considerations many years later. we use the u.n., every possible ally we have. they are all on board, the u.n. is on board. our nato allies are on board. the regional allies are on board. none of it works. all along the military has been planning for alternative scenarios. but gosh, what is it? five months ago one. yeah, five months ago on before carter finally says well, we have now kicked through every possible point of pressure and none of them are working. gentleman, is anything else we can do? the pentagon steps up and says, yes, sir, we've been practicing. we have a plan. the plan is to take a few helicopters, five and in, having already placed personal -- some of this is still secret --
litter today we don't know every detail but people have in place securely to the embassy grounds to facilitate the release. the idea was helicopters would fly again, come onto the embassy grounds. this point they're called delta force, special offers would come in and free the hostages. >> united states military has tremendous capacities. we didn't necessarily have tremendous capacities in 1980, to engineer this kind of clandestine nine special operator driven rescue attempt. the israelis have done something like it not so far before in the earlier 1970s. we trained and learn from the israelis, but we had never written anything like this before as as a military. it was really hard operating desert conditions, enemies everywhere, no clear support system. there were a lot of reasons this wasn't going to go well.
from the iranian perspective it didn't go well by the will of allah. so what happens is the helicopters begin life in to tehran. have to fly over the desert. they have to fly low to try to escape any supervision or surveillance. and just terrible luck, a dust storm, a sandstorm blows up and does a number on the mechanical components of the helicopters. and just all hell breaks loose. helicopters are grounded. they crashed into each other. the operation doesn't even get to k ran. it just fails. -- tehran. men die. the one military operation that is tried is just a disaster, and boy, does that hurt jimmy carter's chances for reelection. the ring hostage crisis arguably never really happily resolves itself in any expeditious any . it goes on months after month after month.
-- expeditious way. after a year, things are still terrible, but an new attempt had been made to bring in a kind of third-party mediator, the algerian government. so the algerian government was not friendly to the united states. a revolution government in its own right, but group international players, legitimate international players say we think we can help in this situation. and they are right, the iranians look at them as fellow revolutionaries. it's a predominant islamic country though they don't have an islamic government at that point. the algerians can go in there like, like we sometimes think of switzerland, can go in there and do a really good job, slowly working through the problems and negotiating point by point issues. it's the algerians who get a lot of credit for pilot resolving this issue. the iranians played one last hard joke on president carter.
they were fed up with it. they were furious about the military rescue team. they refused to allow the algerians to resolve the issue and to free the american hostages until jimmy carter is out of office and ronald reagan is sworn in. so it's not until the inauguration of ronald reagan, 444 days after the hostagetakin hostagetaking, finally those americans are let go and able to come over its 1981 and ronald reagan is a president of the united states. it's an interesting moment in world affairs work on the one hand, you might think the new reagan administration could look toward this new islamist present in iran and growing presence in the region and say, we've got a new threat. we've got a new challenge. how are we going to resolve this issue? but that's not what ronald reagan's head was at. he's an old cold war warrior. he is focus on the soviet union.
so the islamist presence, the challenge at present is basically put away deep in the background. we have a terrible relationship with iran. we don't resolve it during the reagan administration. we don't recognize the government. we keep, , as donald trump would tell us later, a huge hunk of their money hostage in our banks. we don't give it back to them. we just have a deteriorating back story relationship with iran. and, of course, the irony is it to during the same time that ronald reagan sees opportunity with a different islamist group, a group that eventually we call al-qaeda in afghanistan. so because he's such a fierce anti-communist warrior, ronald reagan juices to side with the islamic revolutionaries and afghanistan, provides them weapons, training, money. so rather than say islamism
presents interesting challenge, we don't treat it seriously. we embrace it in afghanistan because they are and the soviet, anti-communist. that didn't turn out so well. i think the united states begin to take more seriously the changing temperament of the middle east. you could make a case by the late 1980s expertise was growing. we are people who could speak arabic more commonly. we had farsi speakers we still didn't treat it as a central problem in u.s. foreign relations. when 9/11 occurs in 2001, i think overwhelmingly for americans and even government elites it was a shock. why has this happened to us? a kind of anger and disrespect that many people in the middle east had for the united states was still kind of a mystery to us. so while we had increased our capacities, we never took it answers as it might have, that growing crisis in the part of the world.
so even now 17 years later, i think we're still trying to figure out who our friends and who our enemies are in the middle east, and how do we keep the islamists challenged manageable? as recent events in saudi arabia has shown, we still are struggling to find the right answer to that part of the world and it's a real challenge and there's no easy answer. poor jimmy carter understood with back in 1979. >> we're in lawrence, kansas, were c-span is learning about the literacy seen. up next we speak with c. j. janovy on her book "no place like home" which sucks but the lgbt activism in kansas. >> when people think about the lgbtq movement, i think the first cities to come to my our san francisco, new york city, los angeles, washington, d.c. lgbt people are everywhere.
the same persons lgbtq people in kansas as there is everywhere else in the country, and what's especially interesting about kansas is that topeka is the home of the westboro baptist church. so what people think about the little tiny group of protesters that started about 20 or so years ago protesting funerals with the signs that say god hates, and other sort of really unpleasant things, that the group of people that is based in topeka, kansas. kansas is a very complicated place. it has its reputation of being a red state right in the heartland but it's history really goes back to the pre-civil war days. usually established to be a free state and so there's this really bloody border between missouri which was a slave state and kansas which was a free state.
kansas was very proud of its free state history. what's interesting about the lgbtq movement in kansas is that back in like 1978, wichita was one of the first cities that has come tried to pass an ordinance protecting lgbtq people from discrimination when is a huge controversy, and it did not go well. when that didn't work people just sort of retreated and went about their daily lives. i don't think that there was necessarily anything special or unique about wichita. it's the biggest city in the state. it's a big city, and cities in kansas go pixel you had an urban population there. you had i gay community of folks who left their small towns and gone to the big city.
the movement was sort of started by small group of people there, like i think happens and all small towns and small states with just a few people who decide to do something. i think through the '80s much of a gay communities efforts were focused on fighting aids. and so that took the focus in the efforts certainly for a lot of people. i don't know that a lot happened then until the mid-2000s wing kansas, like many other states around the country, decided to pass the constitution amendment banning same-sex marriage. kansas did that in 2005. a lot of other states around the country did that. 70% of the voters in kansas passed a constitutional amendment saying marriage is only one man one woman. this was a big movement back in those days. the people who tried to fight it
in kansas are tiny little disorganized group of people that never really gotten together to do any kind of political campaign on behalf of of an lgbtq cause. but there were also laws on the books. there's the sodomy laws that have traditionally been used to sort of claim that gave people having sex is immoral and illegal. the supreme court ruled sodomy laws were unconstitutional back in the '80s or '90s, quite a while ago, but kansas sodomy laws were still on the books. the state legislature has refused to take them off the books. it can't be enforced but it is still there. more recently just in this past legislative session they passed a law saying that adoption
agencies could refuse to place children with same-sex families if it violated the religious beliefs. another issue that comes up a lot almost every legislative session is what's called a religious freedom amendment or religious freedom bill which your sink a lot of these in other states also. it's up to the supreme court even saying that if, saying that businesses and public agencies should not have to violate their religious beliefs in order to serve the gay community. and so kansas has considered those laws pretty much every year in recent memory. they haven't passed because enough kansas legislators have seen the discrimination they are, and so we have been able,
we've had discriminatory laws passed but was also had, we've also been able to stop some of them from passing also, so it's complicated. regular kansans when they see these laws passing are not passing, i think, lgbt kansans know they live in a conservative state. they know they're not the only ones who are facing discrimination or facing these issues that are painful. and they do what they can to educate their neighbors and their family members and elected officials, they are bosses, whoever part of their immediate surroundings, just about what the real life affects of these laws are. sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. as public opinion has changed over the years, lgbt people deal more a part of the overall
larger community, the less -- they are less skin. a few more accepted but they also know that all this could change at any time. it's a scary time to be any marginalized group and the united states right now, and we know that everything that people have worked for could be reversed at any time. >> we are in lawrence, kansas, were c-span learning about the literary scene. up next we speak with father andrew isenberg on his book "the republican reversal" which looks at the conservative stance on the environment from nixon to trump. >> when people think of the republican party and the environment today, they think the republican party is not in favor of doing anything about problems with the climate, and
they are generally in favor of rolling back regulations for clean air and clean water. but that is not always been the case. in the 1970s the republican party was instrumental in joining with democrats to create the environmental laws that we have, the clean air act, clean water act, endangered species act. republicans were in many cases unanimously in favor of creating these laws. ronald reagan and other conservatives, a lot of them coming out of the west where there was a lot of opposition to government control of public land, those people in the 1970s together with the rights of the moral majority and evangelical voters in the late 1970s, they engineered a rise of conservative republicanism that changed republicans position on the environment. for most of the next decade in the 1980s ended to the beginning beginning of the
1990s you had a back-and-forth between moderate republicans were still in support of environmental laws and conservative republicans who thought come first of all that this was prohibited business and that was a bad thing and secondly that any kind of government regulation was an entirely bad thing and should be rolled back simply on principle. the republican party has a long tradition of supporting the environment that goes back to the 19th century. it was a republican president abraham lincoln who created yosemite as a national preserve, and it was under ulysses grant another republican that yellowstone park was greeted. benjamin harrison another republican really had a strong hand in creating a national force or what became the national forest. teddy roosevelt yet another republican did a lot in terms of creating national parks, national monuments, setting aside land for national force. the republican party will realt the beginning of environmental age in the 1960s, if you look
back over the previous century the republican party had a stronger claim to environmental stewardship and the democrats at that time. the early administration of richard nixon is a mime at the loss came into being and nixon although he's a republican was very much in favor of these kinds of loss. in fact, in one of his early annual addresses he pronounced the 1970s as an bimetal decade. he created the environmental protection agency by executive order and he signed all the major laws into being, the national and pilot the policy act, the clean endangered species act. the reason he did this was not necessarily that he had a strong commitment to environmental policy. like i do else at the time he was concerned about pollution, but the environmental movement was extraordinarily strong in the early 1970s. the first birthday in april 1970
drew 20 million people to meetings at cities -- earth day. and back at the attention of a lot of politicians whether the republicans or democrats. the republican party of the 1960s and early 1970s was dominated by moderate republicans. these are moderate republicans who were pro-business and want to slip a limited government but at the same time the republican party was a strong in support of civil rights legislation, particularly nor the republicans than was the case for democrats. it was a party that was interested in doing things for the public through government action. and so that predispose them to be favorable to environmental protection laws. i think we start to see the shift away from republican support for animal protection laws in the middle of the 1970s. there are a lot of factors involved but i think the one i
would pick out as one that is not had enough attention is the oil crises starting in 1972, 73, up to the 1970s but up until the time a lot of americans had been saying we are consuming too many resources can we need to dial back what were doing, be more thoughtful about the way where consent resources. we probably would be paying more for the resources where consuming in order to stretch out the use or maybe restrain some other use. all of a sudden with the first oil crisis, the price of oil went through the roof. there were lines at the pump. there's rationing as a people had all of a sudden do the things that insane but without a lot of fun. they had to do it immediately and in a rushed weight and in way people are prepared for. that's not a lot of enthusiasm for this kind of environmental protection out of a lot of people. that rising opposition in the 1970s to environmental
protection did not manifest itself in terms of legislation. what happens first was useful some republicans begin to drift away from that bipartisan consensus on the environment. the best example of this is ronald reagan who, , when he was governor of california, between 1967-1975, he had a a pretty gd record on the environment. he passed or with strong in support of side air quality legislation. he stepped aside a lot of land for public parks. he opposed the building of some games. his record was a perfect but his record was good on their vibrant and that's a surprising because when he was governor at a time when if imus movement was at its height. he had to trim his sales to what people wanted. then when you start to campaign for the presidency first 1936 and 1980, he started inserting some opposition to environmental
laws and a bimetallism into his campaign in with willy was at odds with his record as governor. he was sensing this rising anxiety and opposition to my mental laws in the 1970s. one of the first things the reagan administration did when can office in 1981 was they ramped up the production of oil, coal and natural gas from american federal land and offshore, which the federal government controlled. that has continued to be the policy since reagan took office in 1981, even during the clinton administration, even during the first part of the obama administration. high levels of american fossil fuel production has been the rule because we didn't want to run into another oil crisis like we did in the 1970s. i love up off the field production and doing something about climate change, these things do not work well together. one important reasons republicans are opposed to doing
something serious about climate is that it means completely rethinking our energy sources. if you look at the republican party today in the way they deal with environmental legislation, you can break it up into two broad areas. one is the enforcement of clean air and clean water legislation. generally speaking. republicans at said that they are in favor of enforcing those laws, that they have described their approach to environment the regulation as a back to basics approach with a will protect clean air and clean water. one of the reasons they do that is there a strong public support for those lost. the problem with that is that republican actions on these things do not align with their rhetoric about clean air and clean water. that's one area. the other area is about climate, and concerns about climate change emerged largely since the
passage of those environmental laws in the early 1970s. one of the things that happened during the obama administration is that they pushed to have the emission of carbon dioxide regulated under the clean air act as as a pollutant that was directly affecting peoples lives. the courts agreed that this was something they could do and this is something republicans have posed. republicans generally speaking have posed doing things about climate. it's a climate change is either not happening or we need to study it more, or it is happening but it would be too expensive to fix. or it is happening but it is too late to fix it and that mixed and matched these different ways of opposing doing something about climate change. the current administration has both departed from previous republican stances on the environment and also just double
down on some earlier republican senses on the environment. in a sense that the contendingt is the done before. the things trump said on the campaign trail and what's he been in office, that climate change is a hoax, the epa should be done away with, you simply repeating things conservative republicans have been saying for a decade or more. there's nothing new about that extreme opposition to environmental regulation. what is new is that trump has not tried to soft-pedal his opposition to doing things in favor of the private, particularly what comes to climate change. even the george w. bush administration which was extremely pro-fossil fuel, nonetheless rhetorically at least tried to offer some support to doing something about climate, even though in actuality they didn't do very much. the bush administration's approach was because they
recognize american voters were concerned about this. trump has made his opposition to international climate agreement a positive thing. instead of being something he thinks conservative republicans should try to obscure and not put forward, he's made his opposition to the sphinx a calling card for what he does. he's merged his opposition to international agreements about climate change to his america first populism. i have not given up hope on the republican party and the environment. in the first case, something is going to have to be done about the environment. it can either happen with some forethought and some planning and some compromise while there is a lot of environmental quality left to save, or it can happen in a hurry, desperately when we just need to do something and with fewer choices. something will happen one way or another. what is the hope about this is
if a look at what republican voters want, they are in favor of a lot of environmental protection that is being proposed by members of the democratic party. those republican voters oppose that because it's democrats who are saying it. i think what most voters really want is they want a bipartisan consensus on the private, like the bipartisan consensus that was the case in the early 1970s when these environmental laws were first pass. there is such tribalism in american politics now that republican voters are in support of republicans or advocating things for the private that they actually are not in favor of and the oppose opposed democrats we advocating things with environment that they are in favor of. eventually that situation what just reached such a point of cognitive distance that it will break. people read republican reversal there's a couple things i'd like them to take way. one of them is about i guess we should be concerned, we should
be concerned that there was once a consensus on the environment and advocate incentives has broken down at precisely the time were facing extraordinary threat with climate change. we need to return to a bipartisan consensus on doing something about this environmental problems and the sooner we do that the better it will be for everyone. >> the university of kansas located on mount or ory added,e highest elevation point in lawrence. founded in 1865, it has a student body of just under 30,000 making the largest university in kansas. it was here that we spoke with professor jeffrey moran about his book on the 1925 scopes monkey trial. >> the scopes trial is significant because at least in
part it was the most famous trout of the 20th century and the only major trial that was didn't have a dead body somewhere in the middle of the. scopes trial is important as well for the things that raise, questions of what the education system was for. it raised the question of what you do with religion in public schools? how do you pass will rally down to next generation? and, of course, the question of how you interpret the bible. what role does the bible have in american public life? the scopes trial is the best example of how we can talk about that. the scopes trial took place in dayton tennessee a small town, still pretty hard to reach in tennessee. what dayton had a lot of other schools didn't have at this time are a lot of other attempted never this time, was a small group of boosters who thought once the state legislature passed the butler law, which is
debated information but basically it was illegal for any teacher in public schools, publicly funded schools in tennessee, to teach any theory that man is descended from animals and that contradicts the divine story of creation as noted in the bible. once legislature passed the butler law and the governor signed it, with expressing understanding that nobody would be for for the to actually enfa lien -- a lot like this can his intent was to prove the legislature believe in the bible. the national civil liberties union at the time thought that the butler law was a terrible law. it conflicted with freedom of speech in the first amendment and also conflicted with the rights of teachers. that was one of the reasons why the civil liberties union had been created, , to defend the rights of teachers.
and so they needed a test is because they thought the only way to get rid of this is to take the law up to the supreme court. best place to get rid of a law like that biscuit tennessee to repeal the law. but the civil liberties union put its hat on. the supreme court, and never really got there. but one of these problems with trying to get the case before the supreme court is you need a case. so you write a test case and you have to find someone willing to break a law and then you pursue it from local courts course upe state supreme court, up to appeals court. they felt they should get this case taken all the way up to the supreme court. the only place where they found a willing defendant was this sleepy little village of dayton, tennessee.
the civil liberties union came across john scopes as a possible defendant for the test case. kind of by accident and advertise for a test case throughout the south and a special in tennessee. local boosters compound leaders got together and sort gathered in a drugstore in dayton, tennessee, and john scopes was a 26-year-old general science teacher and football coach, and he was friends with these town fathers. he thought it was a bad law, so when they asked him how would you feel about being a a defent in this? he said okay, sounds like a good idea. he was young, unmarried, didn't have any real ties to the area. i think he was figuring if he was pilloried for breaking about the law, there was no big deal. he could move somewhere else. as about to matter he did move away from tennessee after the trial. but he was a perfect defendant,
and his friends asked him to be a defendant in order to create publicity for dayton. and so that's how we got pulled then. the trial was held at the county courthouse in dayton, tennessee. it was a small little courthouse and the trial gained attention in the early, release above the law gave attention immediately. the trial in particular became a national craze i guess you could call it, because william jennings bryan one of the most famous man in the country had joined the prosecution. that brought forth clarence darrow, the most famous defense attorney in the country and a notorious agnostic, which the prosecution brought up repeatedly. to offer his services. he was controversial. the civil liberties union dispense the early part of the trouble trying to elbow him off the team, but he stuck rep and
john stokes wanted him to be his attorney. and that's how it became a national cause. imagine the most well-known attorneys in the country, well-known people in the country deciding to fight over a controversial law in a court of law in this little court of law. so pickup packed. they were elbowing each other around all the local day tony is also wanted to show up. they were not particularly busy so they'll want to go to the trial. this was something that happens in real towns, especially before television was invented. what do you do for entertainment? go to the courthouse and see what's going on. and especially in a case like this, they wanted to use some of these great or outdoors. they all into this courthouse becomes a problem because the temperatures were in the neighborhood of 100 degrees fahrenheit and so it was just sweltering only hot in the
courthouse. eventually the judge moved the trial outside because the heat and because he worried that the courthouse floors could not hold the weight of all of these people. and so the rest of the trial, after day six will make it into day seven, the rest of the trial takes place outdoors. .. >> the prosecution and defense made noises about
wanting to keep this trial focused on issues of law. from the be verybeginning, with william jennings bryan coming down . they're pretty clear this was going to be a circus and that's almost what the town fathers wanted . they wanted the publicity and by god, they got it. funny what happens to john scopes during the trial. he never got to speak incourt . he got to say i believe it is a bad law eventually but they after day, we never hear from john scopes, he never got to sayhis peace himself . the trial lasted appropriately a month, if we go back to genesis,the trial lasted seven days . essentially as long as it did to create the world for god
and one of the great things about the trial and what makes it such a fun thing to go back and look at is on the seventh day of the trial, william jennings bryan, the most famous religious man in the country agreed to be cross-examined by the defense, by scopes defense so clarence darrow who led the defense had the opportunity to grill brian for hours, outdoors under this merciless tennessee son. again, about 100 degrees and he asked all the questions that agnostics and atheists had been posing to believers since the mid-19th century and before . where did cain get his wife weston mark did jonah really getswallowed by the whale ? was there really a worldwide deluge as we see that noah managed to get all the animals of the world onto the ark for ? and william jennings bryan fell back on little words in
the bible. and said, i believe it asit's written in the bible . could god make the world stand still? he asked while joshua was holding up his hands. these are questions that are hard to answer if you want to you do a literal interpretation of the bible but all day on the seventh day of the trial, darrow was forcing brian toanswer these questions but to the last day, the last part of the seventh day , he gotbrian to admit the seven days of creation ? have been seven days of 24 hours apiece but in fact each day might have beenthousands, even millions of years of peace . this was a standard fundamentalist interpretation of genesis, but the defense took it tomean well, in other words, we can't take the bible literally . so how could scopes have
broken the law? what was the divine creation of man? if we can't talk about the bible as being exactly as it's written? the short-term outcome of the scopes trial was in fact paradoxically, a loss and a victory for the defense team. clarence darrow essentially wanted to be able to appeal a loss in the scopes trial. one of the things about making a appeals is you have to lose the case and so he essentially went before the jury and said i don't particularly care what you think, to butter up the jury. i don't particularly care whatyou think , but for all purposes, we'd like you to find the defendant guilty and i expect them to try to find him guilty anyway. other than the fact that the jury agreed, it took them nine minutes to reach a
guilty verdict for darrow and that was a success and failure. so darrow was able to appeal the decision up to the state supreme court . which made a very clever maneuver. the state supreme court agreed with darrow that scopes was not guilty so darrow no longer had a losing case to appeal but the state supreme court also got an admission or an agreement from the state that it would no longer enforce the butler law. so this was what one newspaper called the most fascinating legal wet blanket that had ever been thrown on an appeal so the civil liberties union won the case and lost the case, but couldn't take the butler law any further beyond the tennessee state supreme court.
and so at that point, there were a few other temps in southern states such as arkansas to pass similar laws, but they basically petered out because no other states wanted to be ridiculed the way tennessee had been ridiculed . eventually, there was notmuch call for this outside of the south . the rhode island legislature responded to a proposal for something like the butlerlaw by referring to the committee on game and fish for example . so anti-evolution laws at that time didn't get a lot of traction after the scopes trial ended on july 10th , 1925. reaction to the scopes trial is next. for a while, it stops laws against evolution from being passed because of the ridicule that the scopes trial had gotten on the south and it never had much
traction inthe north . other than that, there is an anti-evolution movement that still exists in the united states. it had run underground for much of the 20th century but around 1960 or so, it exploded into public view once again and then the united states actually a majority of the population leaves that the earth is actually about 10,000 years old and slightly over a majority of the population believes that god created humanity in more or less its present form as it is and that evolution did not play a role in this which is a problem if you're a biology teacher but worthwhile for certain religions and certain interpretations of the bible. the scope trial should give us the opportunity to reflect on how far we've come and how much we're still in thrall to a much older way of thinking about the bible and an older
way of thinking about the public schools for that matter. >>. >> i'm on the campus of the university of kansas up next, we interview jennifer hamer on her book what it means to be data. >>. >> i think historically there have been many misconceptions about the role of african-american fathers specifically in the home or being part of families. and i think primarily, there are misconceptions that are completely absent or that their useless and that women are dominant and the families here and in the household and the men are simply present, if there there. and but i would say that by far, it is the absence of fathers, that they are just not relevant to family life or household lives in african-american communities.
>> when you look at the literature coming out in the 70s, 80s on the black experience and the black family and the 1960s, a lot of that work would have accepted this notion that black fathers were absent from the home. it was true that increasingly, children, african-americanchildren are being raised in a one parent home and that was typically by the mother but that didn't necessarily mean black men were absent . that was how i got to my work . part of the expertise that i needed was how to wipe access this community that i want to study. and i was fortunate to have someone in social welfare that i could talk through. talk to that particular challenge read and i knew for the question that i had that what is the experience of african-american fathers, i need to interview african-american fathers. i couldn't interview mothers . >> it's a community of children because that wasn't my question. i set off interview
african-american fathers and i ended up interviewing 88 more or less from texas, but i also took interview material wherever i went and one of the things i learned quickly about african-american men are very open to having a conversation about themselves but especially about being a father because it wasn't a question if they were being asked to work population that they were reading about in the news except for in negative ways and that is that they were absent or that they were deadbeats , but the men that i was very fortunate to meet told a different story. and i mean, i think there's probably no one harder on african-american men and fathers and african-american men and fathers. it's not easy to say yes,i'm a dad . and i don't see my child very often or yes, i'm a dad , and i don't make enough, i don't
make enough money to see them and i don't think that's what i should be doing so i just don't see them at all. one of the things that i learned is that when one of the hardest things that fathers had to do was to see their child and say goodbye. it was thehardest thing in the world for many of these fathers to do . if we think about this notion of father, not just father, but that word aside and talk about dad and daddy because that's how many of these men describe themselves. if you're describing herself as a daddy, in some ways that means you have a closer relationship with your child or at least you want to and if you conceive of these people as a father. so for daddies, one of the most difficult things that they express was going to see their child and at the end of
that visit, because oftentimes a visit. and it may not have been a court-ordered visit because a lot of these men did not have that kind of forward relationship, they had to say goodbye. >> and it's difficult to not believewhat they are saying when they describe that level of emotion . and sometimes it was really hard to go see their child because they knew they'd have to say goodbye and how do you do that as a daddy? a daddy is supposed to live with their child. they're supposed to be able to pay for their own clothes, they're supposed to be able to take them to school and protect them as they walk back and forth area they're supposed to be there at night to kiss them good night. and when a daddy can't do that, what does it mean to be a daddy? that's how i came to the title of my book and i have to say some of them agree with the stereotypes because
they didn't feel good about themselves as fathers but they also believe for those who were better fathers and others i should say, i'm not sure how to say that. they believed there were a lot of black men who were deadbeats fathers, they bonded with stereotypes and they were exception to the stereotypes . but for others, they believe that yes, that stereotype is real because that's deciding me. the problem with the stereotype is it's an exaggeration. and it doesn't describe everyone andit may not describe anyone at all . so even these fathers we said yes, that stereotypedescribes me , you talk with them and you saw that their story was much more complex than a stereotype. and i think even today if we were to talk to families about black fathers, you would find that stereotype of a black male being absent, as being deadbeat is pervasive. it's pervasive among black
communities aswell as outside. stereotypes about african-american men , they haven't changed over time. they're still very negative. so maybe the question is whetherthe future, what does the future hold for black families . >> . >> you know, i don't know. i think i've always thought about my family being more than what we see on television. and i've always thought about black families as being more complex than a simple nuclear family.and so for me, black families will continue to be what black families are, the question is that we providing support and resources to all families regardless of form. so that they can be helping. i've always seen african-american families and the black experience in native american families that tend to be at the very bottom of the most vulnerable and as
being like an example of where we would all be should we not do better those multiple family. >>. >> placement, city source book tv in american history tv on the road. to explore the literary life and history of a selected city area working with our cablepartners we visit various literary and historic sites as we interview local historians, authors and civic leaders . watch any of our past abuse and tours online by going to td.org and selecting the seashore from the series dropped down at the top of the page. or by visiting city store. >> you can also follow the city store on twitter. for behind-the-scenes images and video from our visit. the handle is c-span city.