tv The Civil War James Longstreet and Reconstruction CSPAN April 28, 2018 6:00pm-6:51pm EDT
essentially based on recent custom, not unable or warmer procedure. that all changed during alvin barkley's tenure. >> watch the entire program sunday at 8:55 p.m. eastern. this is american history tv, only on c-span3. >> next on the civil war, university of virginia professor elizabeth varon talks about former confederate general james longstreet and his reputation after the civil war. she describes how longstreet joined the republican party during reconstruction and often had to defend his military service to other former confederate to suggest he was a traitor to the south for his use in politics. this 50 minute talk was part of a conference hosted by the university of virginia center for civil war history. of 1867,on: in march
james longstreet was thriving. he was regarded in the former confederate states as one of the great heroes of the civil of wa, having command of the army of northern virginia first corps and won confederate victories at fredericksburg, among other battles. longstreet had been robert e. lee h werehe had become a pariag former confederates in new orleans and across the south. reviled as a traitor to his party, his country and his race. what happened?
the answer is clear. longstreet published a series of letters in march, april and june of 18 cit67 expressing his support for reconstruction and the republican party, the party of lincoln and emancipation. these letters exploded like a bomb in american politics and they changed the course of longstreet's life forever. today, i'm going to familiarize the context of these letters and survey the public reaction to them. somewhat surprising. somewhat surprising. and then i will come back to longstreet, the man, and try to shed some light on his motivation. modern scholars have cast longstreet as politically naive and inept. i will offer an alternate image of james longstreet as a true iconoclast who rejected his society's demand for ideologically purity. our story begins in march of 1867.
when a prominent were a lens demo -- new orleans democrat newspaper express its views on the dominick question in southern politics. should former rebels comply with the reconstruction program or resist it? let me do a little stage setting. congress' program divided the former confederate states into five military districts who had the purview of a commanding general. these military commanders were to supervise the creation of a new electorate, including african-american men and excellence some unpardoned rebels. that electorate would create new state governments in the form of confederate states. congress was, in essence, establishing new biracial coalitions in the former confederate states. the congressional program was designed to override and supplant president johnson's own
controversial reconstruction program. johnson assumed office after lincoln's assassination. he had overtime abandoned his wartime alliance with the republican party and reasserted his identity as a southern democrat. he granted thousands of pardons the former confederate leaders, permitting them to return to power in the south. state governments urge to push the former slaves through a harsh regime of the so-called violence, into a state of subordination as close as possible to slavery. johnson essentially went to war with the republican congress, vetoed its efforts to grant her free people of the rights of citizenship. johnson's erratic behavior alienated and republicans in congress are able to institute their own policy. in louisiana, which had been the
scene of much of this postwar violencejohnson essentially wen, congressional reconstruction went into effect in march of 1867 under the direction of philip sheridan. decried byposed and former confederates, most of whom were democrats and favored and supported president johnson. this is the setting in which james longstreet offered up the first of his letters. longstreet wrote to the new orleans times the following -- "there can be no discredit to people for accepting the conditions offered by their coffers or any for feeling of humiliation. we made an honest fight but we have lost. let us come forward and accept ithe terms as we are in duty bound to do."
longstreet wrote the times a few days later developing a theme. again, longstreet spoke of the need to accept defeat, only this time he enumerated exactly what he felt confederates had lost in the war. involved "the surrender to the claim of the right." "the surrender of the armor political relations to the negro." "the surrender of the confederacy." the duty was this be the work of reconstruction and put our people in a condition to make their own laws. he noted in this letter that he was aware of the prevailing southern opinions that "we cannot do wrong and northerners cannot be right." but, he urged that each should extend charity if they expected in return. among former confederates,
longstreet's initial letters did not spark much of a reaction. reaction was muted. his sterling military reputation gave him the benefit of the doubt. as one newspaper putreaction wa. it, military commanders were presumed to be men of chivalry and honor and practical in all cases. longstreet was simply advising the south to face reality. the south no longer have the power to it, military commanders fight so itt conform with the law. longstreet's letters were initially interpreted as a plea that southerners participate in reconstruction politics in orders to make the best of a bad bargain, as none other than confederate former rear admiral put it. this early press coverage interestingly often aligned longstreet with other confederate leaders, robert e lee and beauregard and a few who publicly urged
southerners to be law-abiding and focus on rebuilding their political influence within the union. even newspapers that were more critical of these initial letterscritical of these initial letters refrained from writing him off altogether, calling it a curiosity. the augusta constitutionalist stipulated because of his wartime deeds of valor, longstreet deserves a respectful hearing. the paper rejected his position, saying the south should not accept the degrading terms of reconstruction. a memphis paper took a similar tact, respectively instructing longstreet that the south could not consent to a plan that is so punitive. longstreet's letters filled the mind of his admirers. with regret. this regret soon turned to rage. on june 3, longstreet wrote a third letter. this one appeared in the new orleans republican and reprinted
with extensive commentary across the country. this letter was addressed to a former union soldier and staunch new orleans republican, the brother-in-law of union general ofjamin butler -- no friend new orleans. parker was one of a number of republicans who made overtures to longstreet after those initial letters to come out, inviting him to attend a 1867,ican rally in may of featuring a speech from a massachusetts abolitionist, henry wilson. longstreet attended the rally and had rather a good time. his june letter began by saying so. he wrote "i was agreeably surprised to meet such fairness in a politician who i have been taught to believe uncover opposed to the white
people of the south." longstreet professed in this third letter to offer a practical opposed to the white people of the approach to reconstruction with the aim of peace and prosperity . then, he made it all arresting rhetorical pitted. "i. i'm bear the mental of mr. davis or mr. sumner, so long i can help to bring the piece of good will to men." this was highly provocative language. jefferson davis, the former president of the confederacy. bring the piece of gooder, loathed by confederates and had been for many years. this letter would get more provocative still. longstreet offered the self-evident proposition that the highest of human laws is the law that is established by appeal to arms. ehe then deduced since the sword decided in the favor of north, northern principal had become law. it was the duty of the defeated south to "abandon ideas that
are obsolete." among the things that longstreet clashed as obsolete was the democratic party itself. [laughter] prof. varon: which was nothing more than a vehicle for old prejudice. his words. sounding a lot like a republican, longstreet described congress' reconstruction act as peace offerings which would give the south a fresh start. he directly address the issue of race relations. casting black suffrage in the south and arguing that the spirit of black voting should be extended to the north and fully tested, as he put it. a few days later, longstreet offered a fourth letter, a coda offering where he reiterated his claim that the war was made upon republican issues and the summit should be made accordingly. offering where he
longstreethisthese june lettery ignited a political longstreet ignited a political firestorm. southern newspapers opposed to reconstruction disected them in a spirit of wrath. longstreet's letter writing have become chronic. a very difficult thing to a very difficult thing to know when to speak and how often to speak. some found longstreet's characterization of the reconstruction act as a peace offering to be ludicrous and chided longstreet with a nautical metaphor -- "in accepting the reconstruction act, we are accepting a hard bargain driven by a heartless and unrelenting enemy who would be glad to sink us many fathaom if deep in the ocean possible." referring to the likes of charles sumner, republicans were led by "ranting, raving new england puritans."
such views were common among seven democrats that were appalled that longstreet jumped ship. he took aim at the passage where longstreet declared it mattered not whether he bore the mantle of davis or sumner. if it matters not for general longstreet, it matters a great deal for those who fought under him, the paper objected. adding, just imagine general lee classing the amount of sumner with that of jefferson davis. longstreet was a tol of the radicao -- tool of the radical republicans. he'd be left to start by his new allies, they predicted, as soon as they took advantage of his enviable reputation. a key point -- no longer after these june letters, the democratic papers likened longstreet's advice -- instead he was in a category of his own.
alone in his apostasy. southern newspapers classed him as benedict arnold for his wicked desertion of his friends and country. that is a quote. some southern papers targeted longstreet as arbiter proposition. war never settles any principles whatsoever, the shreveport southwestern insisted. the only thing settled by the civil war was the assertion of a superior power by the north. the charleston mercury went even farther in condemning longstreet's position. radical logicthe when ourl longstreet, lord was crucified, christianity should have died. christ was an imposter and it general longstreet was one of his disciples, he would have anded christ's murderers
help them to prosecute his other disciples and crushed his cause." not content with when our lord was this, the mercury added that longstreet would have cited with the inquisition against galileo. [laughter] prof. varon: the man who asserts that force settles truth, it concluded, was hardly worthy to have either a conscious or a god. some of his southern critics call the longstreet a race traitor. e daily tribune simply wished longstreet dead. it wrote "it had become a subject ofe daily tribune simply wished regret that the wound he received at the battle of the wilderness was not mortal." which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] we would have been spared the mortification of being with his enemies. these southern papers were
developing arguments that had a long history. we could trace them back to the spring of 1865. at the very moment of surrender, confederates began laying the building blocks of the cause audiology, claiming the north victory was one of might over right, of superior numbers over resources and claiming that the confederates fought flawlessly for a still righteous cause. this lost cause take on defeat was designed to preempt social change by denigrating the northern victory as a mere show of force. southerners hope to deny northerners a political mandate for reconstruction. longstreet's letters deemed by his critics to be a wholesale rejection of his confederate position of lost cause ideology and embrace of the heretical idea that the union won a moral and military victory in the civil war. in reality, longstreet was not
as much of an outlier and his critics made him out to be. there were southern whites willing to affiliate with the republican party. indeed, southern whites performed an element in the coalition, working in tandem with black southerners and northern transplants to the south. most of these white southern republicans, like longstreet, saw the republicanwith black sod northern transplants to the south. end. relatively few had party as the means to an justice. from the start of an interest in racial reconstruction,reconstruction, e congressional program used propaganda, fraud and violence to draw these southern whites and republican coalition back into the democratic hold. the demonizing of longstreet was an essential element of that project, as he was the most
prominent former confederate to join republican ranks and set a potentially dangerous example. he was a threat that had to be neutralized in their minds. the anti-longstreet ire of southern newspapers was stoked by northern enthusiasm by the general. republican newspapers lavished praise on longstreet and held him up as a bellwether. the san francisco daily bulletin sought evidence that a "revolution in opinion has begun states and theve reconstructing act opened the way for national ideas to enter the south and for organization of a strong republican partyprad him up there." relished, republicans longstreet's critique of the democratic party. as the philadelphia north american and united states gazette put it, the war had
discredited the democrats in the south and north so much so, that is a national party and political power, they were lost. some northern papers used longstreet's letters to get in for copperhead democrats, those that were opposed to lincoln and emancipation during the war. a pennsylvania paper wrote of ohio's notorious for landing acknowledge that he was wrong. the context for these northern reactions was northerners abiding faith in the possibility of southern deliverance. their hope that they can distance raw white southerners, particularly the non-slaveholding masters to concession a slaveholding elite so that the rebels would renounce their own confederate leaders and re-embraced the union on the north terms.
changing southern hearts and minds was a part of the union more effort. it was at work in lincoln's wartime offer of amnesty to those that repented. grant'sas at work in surrender terms at appomattox. longstreet's letters were hailed by republicans because they represented a best case scenario. that some of the old elite even would see the light and exert benign influence. again,tingly, again and northern coverage played up longstreet's military stature to amplify his potential political influence. precisely because the general
had played such firmness and devotion to the south, southern people can safely follow his lead and guidance during reconstruction. interestingly, republican general had played such firmness and devotion to thecommentary on tht letters often contrasted the surrendered confederate soldiers with the defiant posture of demigods, editors and politicians, the very men who criticized longstreet so harshly. veryew york tribune, a popular paper, offered the most memorable defense of longstreet. the following was quoted in many northern papers. "longstreet space the mind of thousands of most sensible, but the poor general was shouted down by a growling, yelling and snapping in southern editorial dens. lampooned, fire eating southern boldly during the war
stayed at home, flung metaphorical flags to the breeze, charged in the abstract and vanquished theoretically." do you askd, "what was james longstreet doing at this time? nothing, sir, absolutely nothing. only meandering this is legal listlessly about about in the wilderness." rebels withreconstructed clamor and rage but all will come right. a small cadre of republican newspapers that were taking root in the south joined this chorus of praise for longstreet. the new orleans republican, for example, use the military metaphor, arguing that longstreet's letters had exposed
the mass batteries of unrepentant rebels. "general longstreet's batteries shelled the wounds where these people were in ambush. he threw their fire and enabled us to see what their position is. what they failed to accomplish by war, they now seek to accomplish by political stratagem." in other words, unreconstructed rebels were angling for power. unionistsese republican papers in the south were every bit as breathless as the northern counterparts. in characterizing longstreet's conversion as a bellwether a good sign. the union flag of jonesboro, tennessee declared "we look upon his change in his political course as a change in the sentiment and feelings of the entire southern people. sword of truth and justice
overthrow thend aero which has long enslaved the overthrow the aero which has long enslaved the southern people." just as longstreet's letters are a window for us in two divisions within the south between those who supported reconstruction and those were posed it, the letters are also a window into the division in the north. just as longstreet has southern supporters, he had northern critics. some of those northern critics offer up some of the most overblown hurls at the general. conservative northern democrats who opposed lincoln, copperheads who opposed lincoln and emancipation and now opposed black citizenship joined with confederates in condemning james longstreet. the new hampshire patriot and gazette cast longstreet as a duper who debased himself only to receive absolution from the hands of the radical. street eats dirt with a
hearty relish. it evidently agrees with him. .t seems to be his natural diet did the gallant rebel ever hear of cider'. s invitation?" the bedford gazette of pennsylvania tore a page out of the democratic playbook by arguing that there was a national affinity between radical republicans on one secessionists, assio both sets were educators that were disunitonist. this paper wrote it was only natural that these radicals took to the general as fleas to a dog. no other newspaper came close to its anti-longstreet investments of the old guard, the new york copperhead paper edited by chauncey burr.
the editor was glee that wished longstreet died in the wilderness and offered its own indictment of longstreet, calling it the mongrel congress and the enemies of the caucasian race. dismissing longstreet's professed desire for peace and assisting that all white men must oppose reconstructing to their final breath, burr hissed "in the grave there is peace in honor, but there is eternal unrest." concluded, concluded, had miserably tarnished a once bright and honored name. all of this press turmoil raises a question -- how can we explain james longstreet's actions in the spring of 1867? his modern biographers have argued that longstreet was in head.is
he was politically inept and misunderstood. in their view, he did not mean when he wrote these for controversial letters to repudiate his confederate identity or his commitment to white rule in the south. but, tempered by political, hea. he was politically beleaguered by ambition, longstreet in their view did an ineffectual job of explaining to his fellow southern whites what his true intentions were. to reestablish the white south's power in regional and national politics. this scholarly interpretation has some merit. there is ample evidence that longstreet did indeed seek to hasten the return of the white elite's power to the south. as he put in a private letter, "we should do the work of politics ourselves and have it white instead of black and have our best man in office." revealingly, the new orleans tribune was represented the
city's free black population argued in 1867 that longstreet was not to be trusted as a real republican, not to be trusted as an ally. according to that paper, longstreet cynically poked the spirit of black suffrage which failed so that both north and south would reject it forever. longstreet looks to the best mode of disenfranchising the color people, the paper wrote. he is a leader looking forward to taking back our rights. if longstreet had more clearly communicated these intentions through fellow southern whites, his modern buyer first suggest, he would not have been branded a traitor and misunderstood. longstreet compounded his woes, modern scholars emphasize, through his in it efforts to set the record straight on his own military performance during the war. as many of you surely know, for decades, longstreet zealously
defended his generalship against critics who sought to make him the scapegoat for confederate military defeat. these critics, led by jubile early, argued that longstreet war as he judist in was in peace. they accused him of traitorous disobedience to robert e. lee wn july 2, 1863. his failure to carry out a morning attack on the lines of gettysburg. tellse of confederates marshall and richard taylor, after robert e. lee's death, to canonizing lee as the marbled man of the confederacy whose brilliant, infallible generalship and flawless
and in the view of these men, longstreet was guilty of not only disobeying lee but of slandering him. they highlighted, for example, a quote from an 18 exceed seven history by swinton in which longstreet was reputed to have criticized late. for fighting on a tactical offense if not on the defense of. early in his cadre claimed in other words that longstreet had dared to pick a fight the saintly lee and to cast aspersions on lee's good name. longstreet was deeply resentful of these charges. he disputed them. he remained proud to his dying day of his confederate identity and he professed profound love and respect for robert e lee. close toaight stayed his officers he attended reunions and ceremonies of his beloved first quarter, he cherish support from his troops,
he threw himself into writing articles on the war for journal such a century magazine into writing a 690 page memoir which was published in 1896. in all of these activities, asgstreet presented himself someone who's republican party affiliation should in no way officiate or supplant his standing as a proud confederate. but longstreet was his biographers have noted his own worst enemy when defending his military dictation. lashed out in blood in fury against his retractors, unbecoming jealousy of lee's reputation. and as a result while some former confederates particularly men who served closely with him moste his military record
confederates were not willing to separate the two. there was no room for republican scalawags or for a critic of lee in the confederate pantheon. longstreet as inept and misunderstood doesn't fully capture his political views or ability he comes across as slow witted dullard. , iead a lot of his writings think he could turn a phrase and i will propose to you that we ought to think of longstreet as a critic of his own society. we should note first that longstreet was keenly aware in 1867 that he was taking political risks when he wrote these letters. before he released his 1867 letter he ran it by his uncle. the uncle was a very well-known proslavery ideologue.
the old man deemed longstreet's letter to direct for the time warning it will ruin you, son, if you publish it. right after the letter appeared in print that june 3 letter which is the most pendant just longstreet sought the endorsement of robert e lee. he wrote lee asking for his support and he was sternly rebuffed by league. lee wrote to longstreet quote i cannot think the course for the best interest of the country and i cannot say so or give the republicans any approval" longstreet in other words new he was out on a limb. he had ample and repeated opportunities to retreat to safety and he chose not to. intead, he became starting 1867 deeply immersed in republican party politics.
the party rewarded him for this support. it granted him full pardon and restoration for his political rights in 1868. in the stove political office on him in 1869. he served a survey or is of customs as a surveyor for the port of new orleans. again, longstreet had opportunities to retreat the republican party of louisiana was deeply factionalized. longstreet could have chosen to ally in the early 1870's with the more conservative of the louisiana republican actions the so-called liberal republicans removing federal troops from the south and granting broad amnesty to confederates. chose inlongstreet louisiana's bitter gubernatorial election cycle of 1873 to back
the faction led by union veterans. william h kellogg and pbs punch back led that coalition. place battle of liberty in 1874, longstreet led the metropolitan police and state militia and literally fought to defend the republican state government against a violent takeover by the white supremacist group the white league which was a paramilitary arm full of confederate veterans. battle in new orleans longstreet was taken prisoner by and it tookague federal troops sent by president grant. longstreet could no longer remain in new orleans after this andin 1875 he decamped
resettled his family in gainesville georgia. he in no sense turned away from politics. he remained an active republican party officeholder. as postmaster and ambassador to the ottoman empire. at each turn, he vociferously denied accusations that his partisanship was motivated by a desire for the emoluments of office. 1875ote a newspaper in there has been no room at any time for doubts as to my motive and wishes into regard to our politics. expressly that i could theno other way by which seven people can reinstate themselves in proper sympathy to the government. my letters of so plainly expressed my views that no one can misconstrue them except
through malice. longstreet felt he was not so much misunderstood maliciously as misrepresented. many proved susceptible to democratic threats and appeals and were persuaded to turn against reconstruction. longstreet was no weak link. he made a lifetime commitment to the republican party and he didn't retreat from it even a face of intense pressure. how can we understand this commitment to the republican party is longstreet's deep and enduring an unlikely friendship with u.s. grant. met in the early 1940's, they came from different
backgrounds. they quickly became fast friends despite their differences. posted toboth jefferson barracks missouri after graduation, and when grant 1848 p longstreet was his groomsmen. their paths didn't cross again until the two met in appomattox. andt approach longstreet invited him to recall the days or so pleasant. longstreet was delighted but not surprised. why do men fight who are born to be brothers, longstreet would later recall. from that moment on grant was longstreet's political polestar. an image persists in the popular culture of lee in grant having a
meeting of the minds at appomattox jointly embracing peace. grant were ideologically worlds apart in appomattox. in reality it was longstreet and grant who had a meeting of the minds in appomattox. --gstreet understood grants the spirit in which grant intended them. through all the turmoil of reconstruction, longstreet stuck with grant. longstreet publicly endorsed grant during a presidential race of 1868 describing him as my man. and adding i believe he is a fair man who will bring a prosperous restoration of the union. it was grant who appointed longstreet to federal office of surveyor of customs when grant became president. the battles of new orleans
-- longstreet wrote to and consulted with grant frequently during reconstruction and after grants death in 1885 longstreet described grant as my lifetime personal friend kindest when i was most fiercely assaulted. as well as thest bravest man i know. say, this reverence for grant flew in the face of a .ost cause longstreet rejected that lost cause because it did not accord with what he knew to be true. namely the u.s. grant was good and fair man. causen't only the lost
that he rejected he also lost cause orthodoxies on slave and race. let me be perfectly clear longstreet was not a racial a gala terrien. he was notly committed enough to satisfy his critics. i will give you an example. in august of 1868 while visiting new york longstreet gave an interview with the new york tribune and in this interview he endorsed grant president. the tribune reporter asked longstreet about race relations in the south and about whether free blacks would be a productive laboring class. .ongstreet said they would whetherrter then asked blacks should serve on juries. longstreet began by saying not
in all instances but that blacks are ignorant on intricate matters of business. proposed a compromise position on this he said if it district is supposed to do right by them, the jury may be divided white and black. the next question the reporter posed was about negro supremacy. replied that cannot never be and it is silly to think of it. the whites in the south know what they are led by politicians. whites of the south know that they are misled. interview this longstreet is giving voice to racism. he is disavowing radicalism and
e gala terrien is a him. he was also in this interview pointedly rejecting a major .enet of lost cause politics president johnson and southern democrats repeatedly argued that any black part of -- political participation would lead to black role or negro supremacy. race relations as a zero sum game. which it would result in abject subjugation for whites. longstreet rejected this form of racist propaganda. liberal kindhat a of biracial politics was possible. that blacks could be constituents in the south and even exercise some authority and
leadership in alliance with the whites. south rebels in the assailed him for taking the position i just described. he was described as being in full communion with the radicals . a man should be one thing or the other, the paper seemed. back insistingd in a publish letter of 18 ixia eight that his critics have lost sight of the interest of the people and their zeal to maintain their ideals and consistency. adhering to old truths. in closing i would like to highlight one last crucial element. namely, his experience of loss. in the second of those four letters which i described for
you, the april letter, he offers up what is maybe the most revealing passage. he wrote quote the soldier prefers to have the sod that receives him when he falls cover his remains. the questions of the war should have been buried on the fields that marked their and. our most cherished objects is .ot duly deposited it must be with this didn't matter. at the last funeral rites of the southern confederacy have not been warmed, let us proceed to the discharge of that painful duty and let us deposit in the same grave the agony of our grief that we may better prepare ourselves return to the duties of this life. passageeve that in this
he was channeling a personal agony, the loss of his children people. five of whom died in infancy. two and a scarlet fever epidemic. devastated by this loss. his reference in this april letter to our most cherished objects of this earth is a window into his lasting trauma and also into how he soldiered on and discharged his duty by burying the dead in the past. reputation years his was somewhat rehabilitated in confederate eyes. in the 1880's and 1890's with reconstruction defeated and one-party democratic roles
reinstated in the south, he seemed less a threat than he had before. more confederates were now willing to set aside his political career and to celebrate his wartime heroics. some even saw him as a herald of reconciliation hubei urged for it became fashionable to bury the hatchet. described in 1904 as the rainbow of reconciliation. 42 yearst second wife her husband's junior and an iconoclast in her own right played a major role in his rehabilitation. from the time of their marriage
until her own death in 1962 she would actively defend longstreet's wartime and postwar records. in recent years longstreet has gone -- undergone a different kind of rehabilitation. commentators have suggested that longstreet deserved a public monument in the south to celebrate his postwar political courage. i have tried to show that longstreet was a man of his time who defies easy categorization as a villain or hero peter --. thank you.
sunday morning on 1968 america in turmoil we look at the media's role in shaping how americans experience the events of 50 years ago. former cbsarvin kalb and nbc journalist and founding director of harvard university shortest in center on media politics and public policy. and david hume kennerly on surprise wedding photographer who covered senator robert kennedy's presidential campaign. the vietnam war, and the white house. watch 1968, america in turmoil. live sunday on c-span's washington journal. in 1958 at the request of the antidepression league than senator john f. kennedy wrote a nation of immigrants and essay which was published as a book after his death in 1964. the phrase has been widely used
ever cents. next on american history tv, ortizian roxanne discusses this topic. is theor dunbar ortiz author of a forthcoming book on immigration. the california historical society has to this event. it is just over an hour. hello everyone. my name is patty and i have the great honor of introducing you to roxanne ortiz. oklahoma and was involved in movements against of vietnam war and was one the founders of the women's liberation movement. she has worked with indigenous communities for land rights and to help build the national indigenous movement.