Have you ever wondered who truly built America? Is it the wealthy white men as commonly believed, or is there more to the story that is often untold? Join us as we engage in a riveting conversation with Thom Hartmann, a progressive talk show host and the author behind the bestseller 'Hidden History of American Democracy.' Hartmann takes us on a journey back in time, reexamining the often misunderstood legacy of the founding fathers, the economic realities they faced and the complicated histories they originated from. We clash over conventional narratives and debate the 1619 project's controversial claim that America was founded solely on slavery and how that compares to Thom's new book.
We also delve into the influences that shaped Thomas Jefferson's democratic vision, exploring how the Whig histories, the Roman conquest, and his profound admiration for Native American culture played substantial roles. We touch upon the sensitive subject of the separation of church and state, reflecting on the Puritan state of Massachusetts and Benjamin Franklin's insightful perspective. Hartman shares his insights on the Militia Act of 1792 and its implications today. Thom and I debate the gravity of the 2020 George Floyd protests and riots, the police's response across major cities and the views of the National African American Gun Association.
Music: Coma-Media (intro)
WinkingFoxMusic (outro)
Recorded: 8/8/23
Have you ever wondered who truly built America? Is it the wealthy white men as commonly believed, or is there more to the story that is often untold? Join us as we engage in a riveting conversation with Thom Hartmann, a progressive talk show host and the author behind the bestseller 'Hidden History of American Democracy.' Hartmann takes us on a journey back in time, reexamining the often misunderstood legacy of the founding fathers, the economic realities they faced and the complicated histories they originated from. We clash over conventional narratives and debate the 1619 project's controversial claim that America was founded solely on slavery and how that compares to Thom's new book.
We also delve into the influences that shaped Thomas Jefferson's democratic vision, exploring how the Whig histories, the Roman conquest, and his profound admiration for Native American culture played substantial roles. We touch upon the sensitive subject of the separation of church and state, reflecting on the Puritan state of Massachusetts and Benjamin Franklin's insightful perspective. Hartman shares his insights on the Militia Act of 1792 and its implications today. Thom and I debate the gravity of the 2020 George Floyd protests and riots, the police's response across major cities and the views of the National African American Gun Association.
Music: Coma-Media (intro)
WinkingFoxMusic (outro)
Recorded: 8/8/23
The following episode features Tom Hartman, a progressive, nationally and internationally syndicated talk show host. Talkers Magazine named him America's number one most important progressive host and the host of one of the top 10 radio shows in the country every year for more than a decade. He's a four-time recipient of the Project Censored Award. Hartman is also a New York Times bestselling author of more than 30 books. He was born in Michigan and retains strong ties to the Midwest. Although he has lived in many regions, he now currently lives on the Columbia River in Portland, oregon.
Daniel Corcoran:This conversation was supposed to focus on Tom's new book, the Hidden History of Democracy, but for a number of reasons it did not. A major one is we simply have fundamental differences. I won't carry out or debate post-mortem recording, but the conversation ended abruptly and not in the manner I prefer. I also take full responsibility for letting this discussion take such a left turn. But why do I mention any of this? Well, it's because the conversation, quite frankly, was dysfunctional. It wasn't productive. I don't believe I articulated my points the best and I should have been more precise and knowledgeable about certain things. But the reason I say this and put this pre-recording is this is what reaching out to people with strongly different outlooks is. This is what it will sound like it's messy, uncomfortable, feels disrespectful at times, but also necessary, necessary to put ideas out there and let them clash.
Daniel Corcoran:Even though I don't prefer the style, I will continue to seek out the guests with strong disagreements and aim to approve from those conversations, because a lot of people don't agree with me, and that's okay. My mission is to flesh out those disagreements and ideas and allow the listeners to decide where they stand. Lastly, if you listen to this episode, I would simply ask you to do me the favor and also listen to the one with Tanika Daniel, the previous episode, just to see how these two guests approach the same topics, similar topics, and their views and responses on that. And with that, I hope you enjoy the following. Welcome back to the show, tom. Pleasure to have you here again. Well, thank you, daniel.
Thom Hartmann:Nice to see you again.
Daniel Corcoran:Yeah, so for the audience listening, today we're discussing Tom's recently released book, hidden History of American Democracy. Tom, I've noticed in your books now being the second one I read, first one being Hidden History of Big Brother in America that you provide quite extensive historical analysis and context, which I personally appreciate quite tremendously because I think that's missing in today's society, when just discussing issues, not looking at the history and acting like everything in modernity is like the first time it's ever happened. But why do you do that Like? Why do you think providing that extensive, especially in this book, talking about the founding fathers and their relationship with the Iroquois and how they had their own democracy? Why do you think that's important in providing that context for people?
Thom Hartmann:There's an old saying that he who controls the past controls the present. He who controls the present controls the future, and I think it's true. I think that we ground our understanding of current events in our understanding of what laid the foundation for them, and as well the mistakes and successes that we've had in the past should inform us in how we move forward into the future.
Thom Hartmann:This is such a big and important issue or issues the wrong word but a thing whatever this understanding of history, that there are numerous well funded by right wing billionaire programs attempting to essentially rewrite our history. I mean, you've got like Prager University doing videos for children that are being used in public schools around America, saying that Columbus rescued the Taíno Indians from their own cannibalism, when there's no evidence they were cannibals. In fact, there's evidence to the contrary In things like slavery was not all that bad a thing, and everybody did. I think it's important that we lay down markers with regard to what actually happened in the past, and that's why I always, the first third of pretty much every one of the books that I've written this is the ninth one begin with a fairly in depth history of how we got to where we are.
Daniel Corcoran:I appreciate that, but don't you think that's an issue on both sides, tom, and even that you would acknowledge when you speak of disputing the claims that America was founded on or founded for white, privileged men and really that it wasn't in their best economic interest whatsoever to revolutionize and break away from England, and that quite a few of them died bankrupt and poor, including Washington and Jefferson. But don't you see that on the left of the 1619 project, contrasting what you're saying in the book, saying that America was actually just found on slavery for rich white men and nothing more and nothing less than that? And don't you think it's an issue that both sides are saying?
Thom Hartmann:No, and I think it depends on how you define rich among the founding generation. There. You know there were genuinely rich people in the United States in the 1770s and 1780s. Virtually none of them were involved in the founding of this republic. The Johnson family was probably the richest. They had a massive castle on the what's, the river that goes up past New York City.
Daniel Corcoran:Allegheny.
Thom Hartmann:No, it's the big one. Anyway, they had a massive castle with hundreds of.
Thom Hartmann:European retainers who wore uniforms like the Swiss guard do today at the Vatican, and you know, and there were a lot of very, very wealthy people who were derived their wealth mostly from their either affiliation with the British Royal family or with the British East India Company. Those people mostly left the Johnson family and fled to Canada. During the revolution, many of the genuinely wealthy people in the Northeast fled to Europe. The wealthiest of the founders was, of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, patrick Henry. Yeah well, no, patrick Henry was quite wealthy, but was John Hancock actually was the wealthiest and his net worth in 1990 dollars was around $700,000, you know, maybe one and a half million of today's dollars.
Thom Hartmann:So you know these guys, as one of the historians I quote in the book says, you know these guys were not even at the level of wealthy country squires, you know, by the standards of England. And you know none of them left any kind of dynastic wealth. There's Johnny Hancock Foundation or George Washington Foundation. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, none of them left enough wealth that it even survived two generations. So you know.
Thom Hartmann:You combine that with the work that Boris McDonald did when he went and looked at who was, you know, in voting in favor of the Constitution in the various ratifying state, ratifying conventions and the makeup, for that matter, the constitutional convention itself, and you find that you know well over half of these people were farmers, shopkeepers, and you know as many as a third of the people who voted in the individual states to ratify the Constitution actually people who are in debt. There were, and the people who were most opposed to the Constitution were people like Patrick Henry, who was the wealthiest man in Virginia, who held over 360 humans in bondage, and slavery was a terrible thing and slavery was the basis of much of the American economy for a long time and you know it was the law in the southern states. It was not certainly in the north, I mean in the first decade of America that were free blacks who were voting in the United States and women who were voting, for that matter. That all pretty much came to an end by 1820. But you know in the beginning.
Thom Hartmann:It wasn't just all about slavery. That was the. That was the terrible thing that the people from the north anyway, people like john Adams, who were very opposed to slavery, or or George well, not George Mason, and you know a number of those people you know had to deal with. I mean, there's all these compromises at the constitutional convention because of it. But you know, I don't I don't think that anything that I'm saying contradicts anything in the 1619 project, frankly.
Daniel Corcoran:No, but what I'm saying is that the 1619 project points to the roots of America finding being found on slavery in 1619, when the first slaves, I want to say, arrived wherever they arrived to me it was Virginia. Perhaps that's what I'm saying about kind of reshifting American history and not looking at why the founding fathers actually pursued revolution and breaking away from the break away from King George and starting their own country. So that's my point, that I think you see, on both the left and the right, this effort to rewrite their history to each is inclinations of what they wish and one history to be.
Thom Hartmann:I disagree. I'm not trying to rewrite anybody's history. You know Jefferson when he wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence had a whole paragraph in there about how England had inflicted slavery on America and the the. As I said, the economy of the United States depended heavily, at least initially, on slavery.
Daniel Corcoran:And yeah, I think I think you're taking this personally, like I'm saying this about the book. Well, I'm not saying it's about the book. I'm saying this about actors that would be perceived like the 1619 project, and keep going, because it's easy for me to remember that would be associated with the left when I'm on the right. As you said, pregger history. There's a contentious bill in Florida saying that slaves benefited from certain skills they learned during slavery. My point is that when you kind of make your side or make us side, to be at the good side, you lose nuances situation and it could be quite pernicious, in my opinion.
Thom Hartmann:Well, you know I'm not trying to say that there was anything good about slavery. I don't even imply that in the book. So you know I'm not. You know I, I will assert that Prager University and some of these other right wing scholars, you know there's, there's a whole little mini industry creating phony quotes or taking quotes out of context, and the founders to suggest that America was founded as a Christian nation also. You know, I'm perfectly happy to call them out, but you know I would challenge you to find any inaccuracies in my book.
Daniel Corcoran:Yeah, so we'll move forward past that. One of the things that I appreciate about your book to was when you talked about great Britain and how Jefferson's ancestry dates back to bring and their people before the Roman conquered that lands and how he believed like Celts and the one warrior that you spoke to I have his name right down the same set and now gag gag a chance. Yeah.
Daniel Corcoran:Oh, yeah, yeah him and his yeah, right yeah it's very difficult but Regardless, moving into him, I really kind of put that together, his speech with the phrase by John Stark that maybe you're familiar with, that revolutionary war hero from New Hampshire which is live free or die. But only John Stark didn't. He had the first, he was a former. He didn't die in the process of attempting to live free wears Gaggachan and his comrades and his soldiers did.
Thom Hartmann:And these were the, the try, the British tribesmen who confronted the, the Roman army, 100 years before Christ.
Daniel Corcoran:Yeah, and I just find that quite intriguing because I think a lot of people have and take note to the many, the many VD Vici I came I saw like what conquered by Julius Caesar, but not many people kind of embraced the other spirit of living free or dying or you know, standing and not so dramatic in today's world, but standing up for what you believe in and saying it true and saying it, you know, when it's uncomfortable to say it. Why, why do you make such, I guess, a pivot towards that context and that sort of, that sort of speech, that sort of language? Why do you think that, personally, is important to mention these people who died for what they were, what they believed in and what they stood for?
Thom Hartmann:Well, I was. I was citing that that. That's a story from the book tasks and a great, a lot of the pasts at us was the, the Roman historian whose father in law, as I recall, was the guy who was leading that invasion and he recorded the speech you know of the British tribes, people and and that was. You know that's not in dispute as history. I mean, that book is still in print. People study it in in high school history class. You know about when the Romans conquered the, the British Isles back in the day. But that was just kind of the beginning from Jefferson's point of view and that of many of his contemporaries who had their ancestry in England. He had read here the, the people of the British Isles in the in a period 2000 years ago, or mostly at least. He believed redheads and they were, and he borrowed some things from. I mean, there were these. There were histories of the British people before the Roman conquest and they were referred to as the Whig histories and they were. They were very controversial. The, you know David Hume, for example, just ridiculed them. You know the famous 18th century British historian and politician. But Jefferson took it very seriously at.
Thom Hartmann:Paul de Rapinde to Ross was the author of the main book that's quoted. It's called the history of England and one of the things that to us documents is how these people were basically tribal. They lived in relative peace, they had an annual meeting where they would each community would send a representative to a, to a central council meeting, you know, where decisions would be made for the following year, and they actually modeled the, the Electoral College. After that. That was sort of the inspiration for the Electoral College. So you know, that's that's why it's in. There is like, you know, here's. Here's another piece of this history that you know it's been kind of lost. You know where, where did, where did so many of these ideas come from? And you know, and Jefferson thought that he saw in the Native Americans who he knew very well. I mean, his father was a map maker and he traveled with his father around Virginia territory when he was a child and Indians frequently came and stayed at their home at Shadwell. His father, peter Jefferson's, farm.
Thom Hartmann:And he thought he saw in the Native Americans his own ancestors, to a large extent at least in the way they lived, and he was very enamored of that, very impressed by it.
Daniel Corcoran:Yeah, and I can, I almost think of myself like in that context of looking backwards, as we already discussed, as to what your ancestors may have went through and to kind of for you to end up here in essence, and I think, as you mentioned, and just talk about Jefferson taking ideas from them and the councils they had to model the United States, is quite intriguing. Yeah, one of the things that's under the survivors and one of the things for now that you warn of in this book and previous books is the separation, or lack of, between church and state. I think in history, a big brother, you talk about the Puritan state of Massachusetts and Franklin fleeing that but I almost I wonder your thoughts on this. The concern with the blending of church and state not that, say, christian dumb is really infringing on the state, which is that they don't want to make a case for it, but more so people worshiping this, worshiping or looking at the state as a wood religion, where they view it as dogma. They don't, they view as infallibility.
Daniel Corcoran:You can see this on the right, which figures like Trump. Trump will take not so conservative opinions and policy stances and people who claimed to be very conservative will still be inclined to vote for him because they are just not allowed to vote for him. And then I would say, on the left, with people like foul cheap at least one of the people that come to mind kind of having this cult like figure when he's saying I am the science and really have producing this persona around the world, seeing that he also has this infallibility towards them, even though there may be any, even though he himself may have contradicted his prior remarks on different occasions.
Thom Hartmann:And I think that's the point is that when the data changes, your opinions have to change, and he certainly did that. You know, there was a time when we didn't have enough masks and he said we should save the masks for people in the hospitals. And then, when we got enough masks, he said it's time for everybody to wear a mask. I mean, he's been widely criticized for that contradiction, but I think the criticism is BS.
Daniel Corcoran:Frankly, I think it's more about the gain of function, research, the ramp, all exchange, saying that I am the science with that, well, we, we also have a number of fundamental disagreements here, but my point being is that do you see people saying answer to your liking people on the right, worshiping people like Trump as a figure, as a deity? Do you see that as an issue?
Thom Hartmann:I think that I'm not sure I characterize it that way, but I do think that Donald Trump meets the criteria of a cult leader. I'll leave it at that.
Daniel Corcoran:And I kind of want to touch on because I know we're running slim on time is moving forward on like 71 and 82, speak to gun control, no gum laws, united States. And I find quite intriguing to when you mentioned the 72 act, the 72 militia act or that militia act of the共同 Act in 1992. But what is interesting to me is how you point out rightfully in that it at laws private militias inside and essence, because they have to directly order or directly report to the president. Simultaneously, that same act in the first article also enrolls every male, white male, that is for the time, every white male, into the militia between the years of 18 and 45. So isn't there a little a little selectiveness in that that, between saying that at most private militias, but in that same act it's calling for every white male to be enrolled in the militia, so everyone would be in the militia, everyone would have a firearm under those circumstances.
Thom Hartmann:No, I mean you and I are enrolled in the militia the United States right now, because for men we had to, when we turned 18, register for the draft. It's essentially it's not being an active member of the militia, it's being available for the militia. There's a huge difference.
Daniel Corcoran:How? So? How does that go into owning a firearm then?
Thom Hartmann:Well, the second amendment has a fascinating history. The main concern that the Framers had was that they had seen country after country in European history being overthrown by its own internal military and history going all the way back to Greece. The question was how do we prevent the military from overthrowing our government? And the solution that they thought they came up with was to not have a military when we weren't at war. And the way that they envisioned doing that was the way that Switzerland does it now, or did up until about two decades ago, and that was that each state in the Swiss example it's cantons, but they're like states each state would have its own militia that would be under the control of the governor and that if the nation were to go to war, then the militias would be called up. This is laid out really clearly in Article I, sectionated the Constitution, where it says that the president has the power to call up the militias.
Thom Hartmann:And so, you know, there was this kind of consensus, actually, that this would prevent, you know, and there was no concern about that with regard to the Navy, but with regard to the Army, this was a huge issue and that's why, also in Article I, section 8, you will find that the only, literally the only place in the Constitution where the ability of Congress to raise money and spend it is limited is with the Army. Congress may not appropriate money for the Army for a period greater than two years Period, but it literally says that in the Constitution and the reason why was because the founders wanted, every two years, for Congress to sit down and say do we still need to have an Army? And you know, this was like I said. This was widely accepted and widely believed. When Jefferson became president, he had, you know, a fairly large Army. He cut it down to about 7,000 men, which turned out to be a disaster 1812.
Thom Hartmann:Yeah, exactly when the British invaded in the War of 1812, the British and the Canadians, they made it all the way down to DC and burned the White House. Because, you know, jefferson had eviscerated the military. And so, you know, ever since 1815, there's been no debate about whether we should have a standing Army during times of peace or not. We've had one continuously. But that's still in the Constitution. So the Second Amendment was drafted originally to provide for the arming of those state militias who would then become the national militia. The original draft said for the security of a free nation.
Thom Hartmann:And when Madison presented this at the this was at the Virginia Ratifying Convention Patrick Henry stood up and got real bent out of shape and pointed out that there were several hundred thousand black people in Virginia and that if a president was ever elected who was opposed to slavery and this was a huge issue because there was strong opposition to slavery in the northern half of the country if a president from the north was ever elected, all he had to do to end slavery in the south would be to say oh, we've got an insurrection over here in Western New York state.
Thom Hartmann:So I'm calling up the militia of Georgia and South Carolina and North Carolina and Virginia and I'm sending them off to Western Massachusetts or New York and that would be a problem because the militias in those states were also the slave patrols in those states and they were the military enforcement of slavery in each one of those states. So when Patrick Henry gave this rather lengthy speech, I actually quoted at length in the first book in this series it's called the Hidden History of Guns. In the Second Amendment, when Patrick Henry gave this rather lengthy speech, james Madison basically called him a hybrid, but still he changed the language to say from for the security of a free nation to for the security of a free state, to make it clear that the individual states could control their militias and keep them within their own borders.
Daniel Corcoran:And I find it that's interesting and I appreciate the context there. But when we kind of go into gun control, gun control, gun laws, then we also look at gun control first being used in the 1820, I want to say in Kentucky, arkansas, states like that, against free black people owning slaves or, excuse me, owning firearms. And we also speak to how the Second Amendment has allowed for the terrorize racial minorities. But I think that also kind of conveniently leaves out the kind minority organizations that do and are pro-Second Amendment, like the National African American Gun Association, and how they kind of stand for the Second Amendment. And when I hear like this Second Amendment reduction to almost absolute nothing, I hear from people who are usually very upper class and they speak for people who maybe don't want to be spoken for in that regard.
Daniel Corcoran:And I spoke to someone, her name was Tangy Daniels.
Daniel Corcoran:She is a firearm instructor, business owner.
Daniel Corcoran:But the point being is and I know we're closing up soon but the point being is that she was a business owner, firearms instructor. She saw the most business that she ever had when the George Floyd riots occurred and the uptick in business. And that's correlated with data from an uptick in firearm ownership and the reason I say this is the people who kind of need firearms ownership the most are the people from these lower socioeconomic areas where you see an uptick in crime and where the police have repeatedly failed to protect and serve and when the officials have repeatedly failed to protect and serve these same people. And when I say the police I mean they're having like stand down orders. They're also having training issues with themselves. So my question to you is with the second amendment, don't we think that or do you think? I want to just assume, but do you think that a complete reduction of it to a nothing is necessary, or do you approach it more as a reform, or do you have a nuance take that I'm not aware of?
Thom Hartmann:Yeah, I don't view guns as sacred and up until the 1970s the second amendment was not even an issue. You know, in the 1940s I'm forgetting, I think it was Brandeis said that the idea that the second amendment was written to protect the rights of gun ownership is the largest fraud that's been perpetrated on the American people. You know really started in the 1970s when the NRA got taken over by a right wing crack pod and started promoting this idea that the second amendment was written so that patriots could shoot back at the government if it ever became. There is not only no historical basis for that argument, it's actually the opposite. There, there, insurrection is, which is, you know, people shooting at the government is outlawed. It's six different places in the Constitution. So you know, having a gun to protect yourself, having a gun to protect your business, I don't see where that's going to do with the second amendment.
Daniel Corcoran:So as in that it shouldn't be a thing, or as in like it's just not related to the second amendment.
Thom Hartmann:Well, you know, you have. You have a right to own a car, but the government can regulate that car. You have a right to own a gun. The government can regulate that gun. I, you know, I, just I, you know. I get it that. You know, when black people were in the streets they just went into a continuous loop of hysteria and there were a lot of white people got very historical about that. I mean, the same thing happened when Barack Obama was elected president. I was. I was at a gun range that Christmas. You know. He was elected in November of 2008 and and December of 2008 I was back in Michigan visiting and one of my brothers owns a whole bunch of guns and shoots competitively and whenever we get together we go to the to the range and we do target practice, target shooting, and they were out ammunition or nearly.
Thom Hartmann:I mean you know that I could only buy one box of 40 caliber ammunition because people were buying it up like crazy. And when I asked the guy why, he says because that in word, you know he actually is the word. You know who just got elected is going to take away our guns and I said, oh, come on, you know that's hysteria and he pulls out his smartphone and scrolls through and shows me an email about Obama is going to take guns away on day one, you know, and there's just like one hysterical things from some, you know, crackpot, yeah, and that and that produced in 2008, and also in 2012, when Obama was reelected. There were actually ammunition shortages nationwide because of hysterical white people.
Daniel Corcoran:But I'm not. I'm not speaking of a lot of pushing that I mean they were really, but I'm not speaking to Obama.
Thom Hartmann:I'm not speaking to Obama.
Daniel Corcoran:Yeah, I understand the point you're making.
Thom Hartmann:And Obama never said he was going to take away anybody's gun.
Daniel Corcoran:I'm not speaking to.
Thom Hartmann:Obama. He did the opposite. He made it legal to carry guns on Amtrak and in national parks.
Daniel Corcoran:I'm speaking to the riots that occurred in the summer of 2021, the police and major cities had stand down orders not to protect people's property and you saw looting across the country and, yeah, was there probably some Germanization of it on right wing media outlets.
Thom Hartmann:Yeah, but I can guarantee that it also occurred. No stand down orders.
Daniel Corcoran:No, there was no stand in ours in Seattle, philadelphia, that the police could not engage or protect property or protect people's livelihoods, that that's my knowledge that police were out in all these cases For sure? No, yeah, they were out. That doesn't mean that there was no stand down order. That's you know, this is the.
Thom Hartmann:This is right wing hysteria. Frankly, it's. It's the oh my God, it's the boogeyman. Is the bad black people are coming to get us. That's poor white people. Spare me.
Daniel Corcoran:Tom. Okay, I thank you for your time. I thank you for your time here today. I thank the National Association for African American gun ownership would disagree. I think my previous guest also African man and woman would disagree. But I appreciate for your time and I wish you the best.
Thom Hartmann:Thanks.