傑里米·蘇里：美國內戰

Lex Fridman Podcast #354 – Jeremi Suri: American Civil War Machine transcription by Qwen3-ASR 0.6B (MLX, local, Apache-2.0). May contain recognition errors. The following is a conversation with Jeremy Sorry, a historian at UT Austin. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. We got A Sleep for Naps, BetterHelp for mental health, InsideTracker for biometrics and Athleta Greens for multivitamins. Choose wisely, my friends. And now onto the full ad reads. As always, no ads in the middle. I try to make this interesting, but if you must skip them, friends, please still check out the sponsors. I enjoy their stuff, maybe you will too. This episode is sponsored by A Sleep and its new Pod Three mattress. I saw a meme recently, maybe I should look it up. It was a meme that was highlighting different ways you can do self care. Which is you know depending on how you feel, what's the best solution. I think it was if everybody hates you. Go to sleep. If you hate everybody, eat some food, and if you hate yourself, take a shower. I think those advice obviously it's just a meme, but there is some truth to that. At least the first and the third for me. A shower is a refreshing way to take sort of control of your life and it feels like a fresh start. And sleep it is just magic to me and not even a full night sleep but. A little bit of sleep, like a nap, can completely transform my worldview. Just having a bit of a melancholy outlook or maybe being a little bit cynical about the world. For me, I take a nap and everything feels new. It's just I could see the beauty in the world again and you know some of that is a of course a gift. It's it's built on a foundation of you know regular exercise, a good diet and some of that is genetics and. Biochemistry in the brain, but really sleep for everybody. It it can give a positive delta to your mood. So I take sort of the bed I sleep on extremely seriously. Some of that is temperature control. I think for me temperature is so central to a great sleeping experience. And A Sleep does a good job of that. They control the temperature, obviously in a technological way. So you could do it with an app. It's a wonderful thing. Check it out and get special savings when you go to a sleep dot com slash lex. This episode is also brought to you by BetterHelp spelled H E L P Help. I actually have a conversation with an amazing scientist and a psychiatrist coming up. And it's going to be very wide ranging conversation. I think about different aspects of human behavior, the good, the bad, and the ugly. So I think much of his specialization is in a trauma, but he really knows so much about narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy, just the nature of evil. The nature of hate, all those things, and the human mind is just really fascinating. And I do think that talk therapy. Is a really really good way to explore some of the darker corners of that mind of that human mind. I've been a big fan of that from a historical perspective. Freud and Jung. I just psychoanalysis has been really interesting to me. Obviously, is a big fan of podcasts. I see a huge value in the power of conversation. To achieve a kind of intellectual, spiritual, emotional intimacy, in the in the realm of ideas, sometimes it feels one way, but you know as a fan of a lot of podcasts, it doesn't feel one way. It feels like a real conversation, even though I know I am just a listener. Anyway, I am a big believer in talk therapy and BetterHelp allows you to do that really easily. So the barrier to access is nil. You know it's it's super easy. That that's essential. The first step, the first step, is really the hardest, truly is. So you can check them out at BetterHelp dot com slash lex and save on your first month. This show is also brought to you by InsideTracker, a service I use to track biological data. I love tracking stuff about my life. Now I do want to be extremely careful not to over optimize everything. I think in some way optimization is the death of romance because I think romance or just the appreciation of the beauty of the human experience is. In part grounded in the chaos, the unpredictability, the uncertainty, the mystery—all of that right—and I think getting perfect data and coming up with a perfect plan and optimizing every single little thing is I think suffocates the possibility of magic. That is the human condition. That said, you do I believe have to build a foundation of health. Health broadly defined, and so for that you have to collect as much data from your own body as possible and take actions based on that data. That's what InsideTracker helps you with. You can get special savings for limited time when you go to insidetracker dot com slash lex. This show is brought to you by Athleta Greens and it's AG One Drink. This set of ad reads I am doing today is just the all stars of what brings joy and happiness and health to my life. Sleep, mental health, collecting good long term data about your body, and now with Athleta Greens. I mean that's really my favorite source of happiness in the health space, my personal life. I drink the AG One Drink twice a day. I break my fast with it. I do it after a long run, put it in the fridge, get a little bit cold, while I take a quick shower, jump out, drink the drink. I feel refreshed and ready to continue the day. Now that all the dark deep exploration of my own mind, the process of running, whether I am listening to audiobooks and brown noise, all of that is done, and now that's kind of the trigger that says I am going to start. A new and I am going to take on the rest of the day. That's what AG One symbolizes for me. Anyway, it'll give you one month supply official when you sign up at Athleta Greens dot com slash lex. This is a lex Friedman podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now dear friends, here is Jeremy Sorry. What is the main idea the the main case that you make in your new book Civil War by Other Means America's long and unfinished fight for democracy. So our democratic institutions in the United States they are filled with many virtues and many elements in their design that improve our society and allow for innovation. But they also have many flaws in them as any institutions created by human beings have. And the flaws in our institutions go back to a number of judgments and perspectives. That people in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries had, and those flaws have been built into our institutions and they continue to hinder innovation and growth in our society. Three of the flaws that I emphasize in this book are flaws of exclusion. The ways our institutions exclude people—not just African Americans, many different groups—the ways our institutions also give power to certain people who have position rather than skill or intelligence or quality. And third and most of all, the ways our institutions embed certain myths in our society—myths that prevent us from gaining the knowledge we need to improve our world. In all of these ways, our democracy is hindered by the false reverence. For institutions that actually need to be reformed, just as we need to highlight the good elements of them. That's really what my book is about. And the myth, the the false reverence. What are we talking about there? So there is a way in which we believe that if we love our country, it's somehow wrong to criticize our institutions. I believe if you love your country, you want to encourage your institutions to get better and better. I love my university where I work, but I want it to be better. We have many flaws. I love my family, but I am constantly telling family members how they can be better. That's what true knowledge leadership is about, not just cheerleading. What's the counterpoint to that because the other extreme is a deep, all encompassing cynicism towards institutions. So for me, I like the idea of loving America, which seems to be sometimes a politicized statement these days. That you believe in the ideals of this country—that seems to be that seems to be either a naive or a political statement the way it's interpreted. So the flip side of that having a healthy skepticism of institutions is good, but having a complete paralyzing cynicism seems to be bad. Absolutely, both are a historical positions. What I try to do as a historian is work in between those spaces. The virtue is is in the middle ground for better or for worse. And what we have to recognize is that our institutions are necessary. There is a reason government exists. There is a reason our union was created. That's what Abraham Lincoln was heroically fighting for. So we have to believe in our union. We have to believe in our government, and we as business people as intellectuals we have to be part of the solution not the problem. But that doesn't mean just ignoring the deep flaws in our institutions even if we find personally ways to get around them. What really worries me is that there are a lot of very intelligent well well intentioned people in our society who have figured out how to live with the flaws in our institutions rather than how to use their skills to correct the flaws in our institutions. There is folks like somebody that lives next door to me, Michael Malice is an anarchist. Philosophically, maybe more than practically, just sort of argues for that position. It's it's an interesting thought experiment I would say. And so if you have these flaws in institutions, one thing to do, as the communists did at the beginning of the twentieth century, is to burn the thing down. And start anew, and the other is to fix from within, one step one slow step at a time. What's what's the case for both from a history perspective? Sure, so historically there has always been an urge to burn down the institutions and start again. Start with a blank slate. The historical record is that almost never works because what happens when you destroy the institutions you gave the example of the Bolshevik Revolution. When you destroy the institutions, all you do is in the jungle that's left behind. You give advantages to those who are the most powerful. Institutions always place certain limits upon the most powerful in the jungle. If you go back to the jungle, the most powerful are actually going to have the most influence and most control. So the revolutionaries who are usually the vulnerable. Turn out to then be the victims of the revolution, and this is exactly what we saw with the French Revolution with the Russian Revolution. So the record for that is not a great record. There still might be times to do that, but I think we should be very cautious about that. The record for working through institutions is a much better record. Now what we have to be careful about is as we're working through institutions not to become bought into them, not to become of those institutions. So what I've written about in this book and in other books, my book on Henry Kissinger for example, is how it's important when in an institution to still bring an outsider perspective. I believe in being an inside outsider, and I think most of your listeners are inside outsiders. They're people who care about what's going on inside, but they're bringing some new ideas from the outside. I think the correct statement to say is most of the listeners most people aspire to be inside or outsiders, but we human nature is such that we easily become insider insiders. So like we like that idea, but the reality is, and I've been. Very fortunate because of this podcast to talk to certain folks that live in certain bubbles. And it's very hard to know when you are in a bubble. That you should get out of the bubble of thought, and that's a really tricky thing because like yeah when you are whether it's politics, whether it's science, whether it's. And any pursuits in life, because everybody around you all your friends you have like a little rat race and you are competing with each other, and then you get promotion get excited and you could see how you can get more and more power. It's not it's not like a dark cynical rat race. It's it's fun. That's the process of life, and then you forget that there you just. Collectively have created a set of rules for the game that you are playing. You forget that this game doesn't have to have these rules. You can break them. This happens in like in Wall Street, like the financial the financial system. Everybody starts to like collectively agree on a set of rules that they play and they don't realize like we don't have to be playing this game. It's tough. It's really tough. It takes a special kind of human being as opposed to being a. Anti establishment on everything, which also gets a lot of attention, but being just enough anti establishment. To figure out ideas how to improve the establishment, that is such a tricky place to operate. I agree. I like the word iconoclastic. I think it's important to be an iconoclast, which is to say you love ideas, you are serious about ideas, but you are never comfortable with consensus. And I write about that in this book. I've written about that actually a lot in the New York Times too. I think consensus is overstated. As as someone who's half Jewish and half Hindu, I don't want to live in a society where everyone agrees because my guess is they're going to come after people like me. I want to live in a society that's pluralistic. This is what Abraham Lincoln was really fighting for in the Civil War. It's what the Civil War is really about and what my book's about, which is that we need a society where institutions encourage, as you say, different modes of thought and respect different modes of thought and work through disagreement. So a society should not be a society where everyone agrees. A democratic society should be a society where people disagree but can still work together. That's the Lincoln vision. And how do you get there? I think you get there by having a historical perspective, always knowing that no matter what moment you are in and no matter what room you are in with really smart people. There are always things they're missing. We know that as historians, no one is clairvoyant, and the iconoclast is looking for the things that have been forgotten—the silences in the room. And also, I wonder what kind of skill, what kind of process is required for the iconoclast to reveal what is missing to the rest of the room. Because it's not just shouting with a megaphone that something is missing because nobody will listen to you. You have to convince them, right? It's honestly where I have trouble myself because I often find myself in that iconoclastic role, and people don't like to hear it. You know I like to believe that people are acting out of goodwill, which I think they usually are, and that people are open to new ideas. But you find very quickly even those who you think are open minded once they've committed themselves and put their money and their reputation on the line. They don't want to hear otherwise. So in a sense, what you say is bigger than even being an iconoclast. It's being able to persuade and work with people who are afraid of your ideas. Yeah, I think the key is like in conversations is to get people out of a defensive position, like make them realize we're on the same side, we're brothers and sisters, and from that place. I think you just raise a question. It's like a little, it's a little little thought that just lands, and then I've noticed this time and time again. Just a little subtle thing, and then months later it it percolates somewhere in the mind. It's like all right, that little doubt because I also realize in these battles when especially political battles. People often don't have folks on their side like that they can really trust as a fellow human being to challenge them. That's a very difficult role to be in, and because in these battles you kind of have a tribe and you have a set of ideas and there is another tribe you have a set of ideas. And when somebody says something contrary to your viewpoint, you almost always want to put them in the other tribe as opposed to having. Truly listening to another person that takes skill, but ultimately I think that's the way to bridge these divides is having these kinds of conversations. That's why I am actually again optimistically believe in the power of social media to do that if if you design it well. But currently the battle rages on on Twitter. Well, I think what you are getting at which is so important is storytelling. And all the great leaders that I've studied, some of whom are in this book, some of whom are not right. Whether they're politicians, social activists, technologists, it's the story that gets people in. People don't respond to an argument. We're trained, at least in the United States, we're often trained to argue. You are told in a class, okay, this part of the room take this position, this part of the room take this position, and that's helpful because it forces you to see different sides of the argument. But in fact, those on one side never convince those on the other side through argument. It's through a story that people can identify with. It's when you bring your argument to life in human terms, and someone again like Abraham Lincoln was a master at that. He told stories, he found ways to disarm people and to move them without they're even realizing they were being moved. Yeah, not make it a debate, make it tell a story. That's fascinating because yes, some of the most convincing politicians, I don't feel like they're arguing a point. They're just telling a story, and it gets in there right. That's right. That's right. I mean when we look at what Zelensky has done in Ukraine in response to the Russian invasion, and I know you you were there on the front lines yourself. It's not that he's arguing a position that persuaded us. We already believe what we believed about Russia, but he's bringing the story of Ukrainian suffering to life and making us see the behavior of the Russians that is moving opinion. Around the world, well, the interesting stuff sometimes it's not actually the story told by the person, but the story told about the person, and some of that could be propaganda. Some of that could be. Legitimate stories, which is the fascinating thing—the power of story—is the very power that's leveraged by propaganda to convince the populace. But the idea, one of the most powerful ideas when I traveled in Ukraine and in general to me personally, the idea that President Zelensky stayed in Kiev in the early days of war when everybody from his inner circle. To the United States, everybody in the West and NATO, everybody was telling him, and even on the Russian side, I assume they thought he would leave, he would escape, and he didn't. From foolishness or from heroism, I don't know, but that's a story that I think united a country and it's such a small thing, but it's powerful. It's the most basic of all human stories—the story of human courage. Courage and I remember watching his social media feed on that, and he was standing outside not even in a bunker, standing outside in Kiev right as the Russian forces are attacking and saying, "I am here and this minister is here and this minister is here. We're not corrupt. We're not stooges of the Americans who told us to leave. We're staying because we care about Ukraine and the story of courage. I mean that's the story that you know. Babies grow up seeing their parents as courageous, right? It's the most natural of all stories. And that's also the stories for better or worse that are told throughout history. Yeah, because stories of courage and stories of evil—those the two extremes—are the ones that are kind of. It's a nice mechanism to tell the stories of wars, of conflicts, of struggles—all of it. Yeah, yeah, the tension between those two. And the reason I believe studying history and writing about history is so essential is because it gives us more stories. The problem with much of our world, I think, is that we're confronted by data, we're confronted by information, and of course, it's valuable. But it's easy to manipulate or misuse information. It's the stories that give us a structure. It's the stories where we find morality. It's the stories where we find political value. And what do you get from studying history? You learn more stories about more people. Yeah, I'm a sucker for courage, for stories of courage. Like I've I've been in too many rooms, I've often seen too many people sort of in subtle ways sacrifice their integrity and did nothing, and people that step up. When the opinion is unpopular and they they do something where they really put themselves on the line, whether it's their money, whether their well being—I don't know—that gives me hope about humanity. And of course, during the war like Ukraine, you see that more and more. Now other people have a very cynical perspective of it that saying. Those are just narratives that are constructed for propaganda purposes and so on, but I've seen it with my own eyes. There's heroes out there, both small and big. So just regular citizens and leaders. One set of heroes I learned about writing this book that I didn't know about that I should have are more than one hundred thousand former slaves who become Union soldiers during the Civil War. It's an extraordinary story. We think of it as North versus South, white northern troops versus white southern troops. There are as I said more than one hundred thousand slaves, no education, never anything other than slaves who flee their plantations, join the Union Army. And what I found in the research and other historians have written about this too is they become some of the most courageous soldiers because they know what they're fighting for. But there's something more to it than that. It seems in their stories that there there is a humanity, a human desire for freedom and a human desire to improve oneself, even for those who have been denied even the most basic rights for all of their lives. And I think that story should be inspiring to all of us as a story of courage because we all deal with difficulties. But but none of us are starting from slavery. That's really powerful that that that flame the longing for freedom can't be extinguished through the generations of slavery. So that's something you talk about. There's some deep sense in which. While the war was about in part about slavery, it's not the slaves themselves fought for their freedom and they won their freedom. I don't think it's a war about slavery. I think it's a war about freedom. Because if you say it's a war about slavery, then it sounds like it's an argument between the slave masters and the other white guys who didn't want slavery to exist. And of course that argument did exist, but it wasn't. It was an it was a war over over freedom, especially after 1863 into the second year of the war when Lincoln because of war pressures. Signs emancipation proclamation, which therefore says that the contraband, the property of southerners, i.e. , their slaves, will now be freed and brought into the Union Army. That makes it about about freedom already. The slaves were leaving the plantations. They knew what was going on and they were going to get out of slavery as soon as they could. But now it becomes a war over freeing them, over opening that opportunity for them. And and that's how the war ends. That's really important, right? And that's where we are in our politics today. It's the same debate. It's why I wrote this book. The challenge of our time is to understand how do we make our society open to more freedom for more people. So let's go to the beginning. How did the American Civil War start? And why? So the American Civil War starts because of our flawed institutions. The founders had mixed views of slavery, but they wanted a system that would eventually work its way toward opening for more people of more kinds. Not necessarily equality, but they wanted a more open democratic system. But our institutions were designed in ways that gave disproportionate power to slaveholders in particular states in the Union through the Senate. Through the electoral college, through many of the institutions we talk about in our politics today, therefore that part of the country was in the words of Abraham Lincoln, holding the rest of the country hostage. For a poor white man like Abraham Lincoln born in Kentucky who makes his way in Illinois, slavery was an evil not just for moral reasons. It was an evil because it denied him democratic opportunity. Why would anyone hire poor Abe to do something if they could get a slave to do it for free? And an economy of opportunity for him had to be an economy that was open and that did not have slavery, particularly in the new states that were coming into the Union. Lincoln was one of the creators of the Republican Party, which was a party dedicated to making sure all new territory. Was open to anyone who was willing to work any male figure who would be paid for their work free labor free soil free men basic capitalism. Southerners southern plantation owners were an aristocracy. That did not want that. They wanted to use slavery and expand slavery into the new territories. What caused the Civil War? The clash and our institutions that were unable to adapt and continued to give disproportionate power. To these southern plantation slave owners, the Supreme Court was dominated by them. Senate was dominated by them, and so the Republican Party came into power as a critique of that. And Southerners unwilling to accept Southern Confederates unwilling to accept that change, went to war with the Union. So who was on each side? The Union and Confederates. What are we talking about? What are the states? How many people? What's like the the demographics and the dynamics of of each side. The Union side is much much larger, right in terms of population. I think about 22 million people, and it is what we would today recognize as all the states basically north of Virginia. The south is the states in the south of the Mason Dixon line, so Virginia and there on south west through Tennessee. So Texas for example is in the Confederacy, Tennessee's in the Confederacy, but other states like Missouri are border border states. And the the Confederacy is a much smaller entity. It's made up of about nine million people plus about four million slaves, and it is a agricultural economy. Whereas the northern economy is a more industrializing economy. Interestingly enough, the Confederate states are in some ways more international than the northern states because they are exporters of cotton, exporters of tobacco. So they actually have very strong international economic ties, very strong ties to Great Britain. The United States was the largest source of cotton to the world before the Civil War. Egypt replaces that a little bit during the Civil War, but all the English textiles were American cotton from the south. And so it is the southern half of what we would call the eastern part of the United States today with far fewer people. It's made up the Confederacy is of landed families. Wealth in the Confederacy was land and slaves. The northern United States is made up predominantly of small business owners and then larger financial interests such as the banks in New York. And what about the military? Who are the people that picked up guns? What are the numbers there? So the the the Union also outnumbered the Confederates by far. But this is a really interesting question because there's no conscription in the Constitution. Unlike most other countries, our democracy is formed on the presumption that human beings should not be forced to go into the military if they don't want to. Most democracies in the world today actually still require military service. The United States has very rarely in its history done that. It's not in our Constitution. So during the Civil War in the first months and years of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln has to go to the different states to the governors and ask the governors for volunteers. So the men who take up arms, especially in the first months of the war, are volunteers in the north. In the south, they're actually conscripted, and then as the war goes on, the Union will pass the conscription acts of 1862 and 1863, which for the first time and this is really important because it creates new presidential powers. For the first time, Lincoln will have presidential power to force men into the army, which is what leads to all kinds of draft riots in New York and elsewhere. But suffice it to say, the Union Army throughout the war is often three times the size of the Confederate Army. What's the relationship between this no conscription and people standing up to fight for ideas and the Second Amendment? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We're in Texas. Yes, so what's the role of that in in this story? The American population is already armed before the war, and so even though the Union and the Confederate armies will manufacture and purchase arms, it is already an armed population. So the American presumption going into the war is that citizens will not be forced to serve, but they will serve in militias to protect their own property. And so the Second Amendment, the key part of the Second Amendment for me as a historian, is the well regulated militia part. The presumption that citizens as part of their civic duty do not have a duty to join a national army, Prussian style, but are supposed to be involved in defending their communities. And that's that's the reality. It's also a bit of a myth, and so Americans have have throughout their history been gun owners, not AK forty seven owners, but gun owners, and gun ownership has been for the purpose of community self defense. The question coming out of that is what does that mean in terms of you have access to everything. Anthony Scalia even himself asked this question on the Supreme Court. You know he said in one of the gun gun cases, you have the right to defend yourself, but you don't have the right to own an Uzi. You don't have the right to have a tank. I don't think they'd let you park a tank lex in your parking spot, right? I looked into this. I think I think there's a gray area around tanks. Actually, I think you are legit allowed to own a tank. Oh, you really? I think there's somebody look into this because somebody told me, but I could see like that because it's very difficult for that to get out of hand. Right, right. Okay, there may be one guy in a tank. You could be breaking laws in terms of the width of the vehicle that you're using to operate. Anyway, that's that's a hilarious discussion. But sort of to make the case speaking of AK forty seven and rifles and back to Ukraine for a second. One of the fascinating social experiments that happened in Ukraine at the beginning of the war is they handed out guns to everybody, rifles, and crime went down, which I think is really interesting. Yeah, I hope somebody does a kind of psychological data collection analysis effort here to try to understand why because it's not obvious to me that in a time of war, if you give guns to the entire populace, anyone who wants a gun, it's not going to especially in a country who has historically suffered from corruption, not result in robberies and assaults and all that kind of stuff. There's a deep lesson there. Now I don't know if you can extend that lesson beyond wartime though. Right, that's the question. What happens after the war? I mean, my inclination would be to say that can work during war, but you have to take the guns back after the war. But they might be very upset when you try to. That's the problem. No, that's precisely the problem. That that's actually part of the story here. I mean, what happens after the Civil War after Apimatics in 1865 is that many southern soldiers go home with their guns, and they misuse their weapons to quite frankly shoot and intimidate former slaves who are now citizens. And this is a big problem. I talk about this in the book in Memphis in 1866. It is former Confederate soldiers and police officers and judges who are responsible for hundreds of rapes within a two day period and destroying an entire community of African Americans and they're able to do that because they brought their guns home. But underneath, underneath the issue of guns, there is just the fundamental issue of hatred and inability to see other humans in this in this world as having equal value as another human being. What was the election of 1860 like that brought Lincoln to power? So the election of 1860 was a very divisive election. We have divisive contested elections from 1860 really until 1896. The 1860 election is the first election where a Republican is elected president that is Lincoln, but he's elected president with less than 40 of the vote because you have two sets of Democrats running. Democrats who are out to defend the Confederacy and everything, and then Democrats who want a compromise but still keep saving slavery. Most famous Stephen Douglas who argues for basically allowing each state to make its own decisions, popular sovereignty as he called it, and then you still have traditional Whigs who are running that was the party that preceded the Republican Party. So you have four candidates, Lincoln wins a plurality. Lincoln is elected largely because the states that are anti slavery or anti expansion of slavery are not a majority, but there are plurality and the other states have basically factionalized and so they're unable to have a united front against him. Was the main topic at hand slavery? Think the main topic at hand at that time was the expansion of slavery into new territories. Into new territory, right? It was not whether to abolish slavery or not. Lincoln is very careful and his correspondence is clear. He wants no one on his side during the election to say that he's arguing for abolitionism, even though he personally supported that. What he wants to say is the Republican Party is for no new slave territories. Did he make it clear that he was for abolition? No, he was intentionally unclear about that. Do you think he was throughout his life? Was there a deep because that takes quite a vision? Like you look at society today, and you it takes quite a man to see that there's something deeply broken where a lot of people take for granted. I mean, into modern day you could see factory farming. That's one of those things that in 100 years we might see as like the torture, the mass torture of animals could be could be seen as evil, but just to look around and wake up to that, especially in a leadership position. Yeah, was he able to see that? In some ways, yes, in some ways no. I mean, the premise of your question is really important that to us it's obvious that slavery is is a horror, but to those who had grown up with it, who had grown up seeing that, it was hard to imagine a different world. So you're right, Lincoln's imagination like everyone else's was limited by his time. I don't think Lincoln imagined a world of equality between the races, but he had come to see that slavery was horrible. And historians have differed in in how he came to this. Part of it is that he had a father who treated him like a slave, and you can see in his early correspondence how much he hates that his father who was a struggling farmer was basically trying to control Lincoln's life, and he came to understand personally, I think, how horrible it is to have someone else tell you what you should do with your labor, not giving you your own your own choices. But Lincoln was also a pragmatist. This is what made him a great politician. He wanted to work through institutions, not to burn them down. And he famously said that if he could preserve the Union and stop the spread of slavery by allowing slavery to stay in the South, he would. If he could do it by eliminating slavery in the South, he would. If he could do it by buying the slaves and sending them somewhere else, he would. His main goal, what he ran on, was that the new territories west of Illinois, that they would be areas for free poor white men like him, not slavery. What do you learn about human nature if we step back and look at the big picture of it? That slavery has been a part of human civilization for thousands of years. That this American slavery is not a new phenomenon. I think history teaches us a very pessimistic and a very optimistic lesson. The pessimistic lesson is that human beings are capable of doing enormous harm and brutality to their fellow man and woman, and we see that with genocide in our world today. That human beings are capable with the right stimuli, the right incentives, of of of enslaving others. I mean, genocide is in the same category, right? The optimistic side is that human beings are also capable with proper leadership and governance of resisting those urges, of putting those energies into productive uses for other people. But I don't think that comes naturally. I think that's where leadership and institutions matter. But leadership and institutions can tame us. We can tame, we can civilize ourselves. You know, for a long time we stopped using that verb to civilize. I believe in civilization. I believe there's a civilizing role. Lincoln spoke of that, right? So did Franklin Roosevelt. The civilizing role that government plays, education is only a part of that. It's creating laws, minimal laws, but laws nonetheless that incentivize and penalize us for going to the dark side. But if we allow that to happen or we have leaders who encourage us to go to the dark side, we can very quickly go down a a deep dark tunnel. See, I believe that most people want to do good, and the power of institutions if done well, they encourage and protect you if you want to do good. So if you're just in the jungle, the so from a game theoretic perspective, you get punished for for doing good. So being extremely self centered and greedy and even violent and manipulative can have from a game theory perspective benefits, but I don't think that's what most humans want. Institutions allow you to do what you actually want, which is to do good for the world, do good for others, and actually in so doing, do good for yourself. Institutions protect that natural human instinct. I think, and what you just articulated, which I think the historical record is very strong on, is the classic liberal position. That's what liberalism means in a 19th century sense, right? That you believe in civilizing human beings through institutions that begins