Is ok, we are ready to get started, here. Lets get everybody in their seat. Ok, have you got me . No . Well, this is the part of the program that i have been looking forward to the most. The panel discussion. We have some Great Questions here. You will note that i on purpose have separated george and will. [laughter] i am not saying we are doing a pointcounterpoint, but i expect that to happen at any moment. I have all the questions here. The are really good ones. Not surprisingly, there are four of them that are basically the same, but with a little bit of a twist. There was a question i was planning on asking anyway, and what i would like to do is start over here. One at a time, tell me who you think was the most hated it general of the war . Rethink we all pretty much know this answer already. I think we all pretty much know this answer already. Then we will say who you thought was the most loved it general of the war. Lets start over here. The most hated general of the war . I get not only that question, but i get to go first. [laughter] on that end, so i can feel like the rest of us. You are on the spot. I am not dodging when i answer this. I dont hate any of them. I really dont. And a buddy of any rank from private to general anybody of anybodyany buddy from private to general put in rank, they deserve admiration, some more than others, possibly. [applause] you all can tell i am not the politician type, so i am not saying that just to be evasive, but i really dont. Question to answer the , the one that i am most puzzled, if you will, about some of the decisions he made during the war, in fact all of them, would be judge announced in judge ons did the judge. But i dont hate him. I have a lot of respect for him. Understand, and i am not saying i disagree, because i wasnt there and i do not know what information he had. But from 150 years away in a million miles away, i have a always wondered why did he do this and why did he do that . Theres not a general on either side that i dislike. How was that . I think in terms of who was most hated, it depends on the constituency. I think ben butler was most hated in new orleans by a lot of people for a variety of reasons. I think joe johnson was most hated by people in richmond. It really depends on who is doing the hating. If i had to say the one who came out of the war with the most reputation would probably be ben butler. As we have heard, that depends very much on the criteria you use to evaluate him. If you are looking at him as a general, maybe that is deserved. If you are looking at him as a contributor to American History, there is a different evaluation we can make. Well, there is obviously no way to be precise about a question like this. Im not sure i like the question. I will answer anyway. I agree with craig, it is butler. He is the most vilified in the south, far more than any other Union General and for less reason in many ways. I think far more than sherman. , during the war itself. In the north, butler will have plenty of enemies. During reconstruction, he has plenty of enemies north and south. I will vote for butler all the way. Would agree with craig. It is the criteria of who is doing the evaluating. If you want to take the perspective of the common soldier, i would say it is braxton bragg, who has by the end of his tenure, yet very few friends amongst the command structure of the army or common soldiers. ,erhaps unjustly in some cases he was accused of executing a soldier and doing all sorts of horrible things to them, which was not true. Many of you have had the chance to read new book on braxton bragg, which is not an entire revision of the man, but if a better perspective, a more balanced respect of of braxton bragg. From the soldier standpoint, it would have to be bragg. I wills affection for the lovable losers. I suggest at the conference after next year, you should do eight lovable losers program and have will do all of them. [applause] [laughter] i would also look at this through the lens of policy rather than popularity. I think the man who perhaps most disappointed those in professional positions who expected much of him or more of him was henry alec. His role as general in chief of union armies involved into something very evolved into something very different. Many of us who have jobs we dont like wish we could transform them into them into something else. He did not want to be a chief in the traditional form. Instead, he fully evolved his job into being essentially a chief of staff. In the process, i think he frustrated many of the men who came under his command and expected them to exercise command. When he opted not to, he left behind a legacy that was not always a net positive impact on the war effort. We are running out of candidates. Brad obviously comes to mind. I have done work with butlers understand. Can i think will race is a great question. And ithe soldiers, bragg, think another candidate y will throw into this and i will do this because i did the biography, is siegel, who was vilified by the public, even germans during the war. He was a person whose career long after the war was vilified by a lot of germans and nongermans for his maddeningly frustrating campaigns, so as some real credibility and being a part of that conference you just mentioned, losers and generals in defeat. Maybe that could be a theme. In any case, those are the ones i would say. I think you know what i am going to say. Ben butler gets my vote, not only during the war but after, in the north and the south. Nobody elicits the animosity that butler does. No other general elicits from jefferson davis, the confederate president , in order calling for his execution. Hate mail ands papers in the library of congress, i think it is pretty clear it is been butler. Well, we are going to turn this around a little bit. We will start over on this end. This was a great question. Has talked about it a little. Which of the generals are not hated enough . [laughter] not hated enough russian mark not hated enough . Not hated enough. I will go with forest. Be one of thed to two great geniuses of the war. Had work on him that celebrated him as a tactical isius and what he does despicable. And we have not come to terms with that. I will go with forest. I dont know how to follow that. That is a great beginning. I think there is also something to be said for hallock. Maddeninglytrating, individual who in both the east and the west perhaps deserves more criticism. I would vote maybe hallock. I struggle with these questions, with the nature of the questions, because it gets us back to what george was mentioning this morning where we look at this as an exercise as if it is a sunday afternoon football game, in which team do you like most in which team do we like least. Rather than say answering specifically, and maybe i am dodging the question, that in all of these cases, these individuals found themselves in complex situations has our Cultural Heritage discouraged us from fully understanding. Age, doing this right vision feedside into a simplistic view of history that we need to move away from. That unpleasant basis, i refuse to answer the question. [laughter] [applause] that is good. That is kind of a Sidney Crosby type of an answer. [laughter] i will directly answer the question. Winning tends to cover lots of sins. One of the great whimpers of the civil war, who is one of the Great Centers of the civil war a man who was on undoubtedly a cavalry officer. He became a very good cavalry officer. Represented almost in the triumphant area of sherman and grant in sheridan. On a personal level sheridan is a rather unlikable fellow, in the way you would leave people of command on the field. It was the way he dealt with subordinates, and it was not to be admired. You rarely see sheridan portrayed in a negative way. Good point. George . I am tempted to follow john hennessys example. For one thing, i agree with it. Having written one book on hatred and studying hatred from the northern side, i am not sure i want to contribute to it. I will give a contrary answer just to get a contrary answer. I will say mcclellan was not hated enough during the war, and he has been hated too much after the war. Typical professorial answer, george. I think what the question implies, at least when it is intended to apply and pike is someone whose reputation is pretty good these days. , oh, i am think impressed with the victories this individual managed to craft, but may not be deserving of that. I am going to go with nathan forest. He falls in that category. He has gotten a pass, not only from popular media, but even forced go gives him a pat forest gump gives him a pass. We give him too much credit. Whether he deserves to be hated for that, i think he is an inflated character in the war. Sam . And now for the on professorial response. [laughter] again, i agree it is a difficult question, and especially for me, since i have spent 10 or 15 years trying to reading the honor of somebody, i am alwayscize athe to do that lo do that. Since i have already criticized joe johnson, i think i will just , and even though you didnt see it, the craig stone to on my right tell. [laughter] i will just say one thing. I think joe johnston did one thing that was extremely disappointing as i studied, and that is, in his memoirs, he stated that he accepted command of the army of tennessee the third time in 1865, knowing that the war had been lost and his words were, and this is almost verbatim, which is kind of an oxymoron. He said he accepted command knowing there was nothing more to accomplish than to accept that surrender terms might be acceptable to the southern people. But at bentonville, he attacked and initiated an attack and there were 3000 confederate casualties, including 800 killed. And in his memoirs, he says of john bell hood, that the attack at franklin was useless butchery. Went was useless butchery in november 1864, what was bentonville in 1865, especially when he said we are just trying to get better surrender terms russian mark i thought terms . I thought that was costly for the 800 troops. , i williticize johnston say i dont want to criticize johnston. [laughter] be oneay, it would particular instance or instance that i think deserves more scorn that it has received in history. Several other along the same vein, you also have to consider what the soldiers felt about all of these guys and which ones they enjoyed our hated or loved so much. I think we have exhausted that topic. The rest of these i just leave open to the panelists if they want to answer or not. We will get your opinions on these things. This one i found kind of interesting. It is a speculation, really, but which one of the generals mentioned in our seminar this again would have risen to high rank in todays army . Anybody want to tackle that one . [laughter] we have several guys that are west point graduate, and one guy who wasnt. Anybody . No comments. Ok, we will move on. This one is for john, especially, but others can elaborate if they wish. Could you elaborate on your , whyon of Philip Tierney is there no modern scholarly accuracy russian mark scholarly accuracy . There is one that has done tremendous work and preserved documentary regarding kearny. Kearny is an interesting fellow. Is intolerant of those he sees as inferior to him, which is to say almost everybody. He is highly critical both privately and at times publicly of those around him, but he also exhibited and the reason i call him perhaps the best Division Commander the potomac ever had is that he is one of not onlyho had a unbroken, but largely positive record of aggressiveness, which is really characteristic contrary to the culture of the army of the potomac, which was lyrically generally conservative, but was conservative in its approach in the art of war as well. Only politically generally conservative, but was conservative in its approach in the art of war as well. It showed in a way that mattered in a great fashion on a Civil War Battlefield in the junior, maryland, or pennsylvania. Virginia, maryland, or pennsylvania. I think kearny is interesting for that reason. His connections overseas. He is a very interesting man. His status his instinct to seek out conflicts in combat and to serve the military are just nations, but military art at the same time. He begs a little more investigation. That may revise my view of him as well. Workt someone like ryan to brian is like butler. That was one of the best books ive heard wife at one of these heard in my life at some of these sessions. That can shine a light on people. Kearny is right for investigation and discussion. He was often named as a potential army commander. It is hard to imagine that given his personality, but he was highly affect to and anomalous on the battlefield for the potomac. Anyone else want to comment on that . George . Me of thereminds quotation activity to Teddy Roosevelts daughter, and that is if you cant say anything nice, sit by me. [laughter] kearny, if you disliked george mcclellan, read kearnys letters. He hates mcclellan in spades. Critical,elightfully negative, colorful. I think kearny is worth a great deal of study, and he certainly provides a lot of fodder on many issues. One littleknown footnote to fill kearny, his death place at originly is really the of the Civil War Preservation movement. Back in 1986 in 1987 when there was a proposal to develop the land at chantilly where kearny and stevens were killed on september 1, 1862, some local folks got together and said we have to do something about that. We got together in my living room in july 1987 and out of associationn the for the preservation of civil war sites, which gave way to the civil war trust. Kearny gave another contribution in death 100 and some years later to the War Preservation movement. Anything else on that one . I think this is a great question that some to give us. It is actually probably more about how each one of the press,s reacted with the but the actual question is, could the positive things set of mcclellan by grant and a sherman have been out of empathy since they had their own careers sabotaged by military intrigues and had been personally ripped in the press . Maybe you can comment, each one of you, and how your kite reacted with the press, and then we will talk about the press, i guess. Anybody want to start that one . [laughter] i will say something. Thatnk one of the things almost all of these individuals did after the war, and i will be happy to hear exceptions, is try to preserve their reputations. They lined up testimonials, if you would, not only from the people they fought with, but the people they fought against. It was very import for joe johnston, sams best friend, to have sherman tell the press how joe johnston was such a oe. Icult f they actually came became friends. There are pictures of them going through maps and asking why they did things. If each can make the other be accepted as a military genius, think how much better that makes them look . Sherman because he be a military genius and johnstons excuse that i said up to a military genius. Also that they went out and found testimonials from friends and allies of the dont you agree that i was right at this location and the other guy was wrong . Things. Lected these samet showed us letters yesterday that are samples of those kinds of things sam showed us letters yesterday that are samples of those kinds of things. They sought to find support for the public resurrection for Public Protection of their names and their honor in the 19th century that they would have found important. These played out not just in newspapers and literature of the day, but when buell and johnson got together and ask each of them to provide some information. They didnt just provide information and they didnt just do what granted in his memoirs and just give a narrative from the view of the headquarters, they instead point by point show by their critics were wrong. There is a lot of that in the postcivil war literature. Still, some of the Research Materials we all rely on to do our work also. Anybody else . Is there any public major public figure in American History who has liked the press . They almost never do. Joseph hooker railed against the press. Mcclellan did. It reason for why grant would have been sympathetic to mcclellan on that account is that grant understood the complexity of what mcclellan in a a maneuvering with maneuvering with the press. There is not just the press. The press was as complicated in 1863, even more so, that it is in 2017. This idea that the American Press is objective and rooted in a is not knowledge of the history of the press in the United States of america. , mcclellaners actively cultivated connections with the press. Important inibly illuminating correspondence with the owner of the new york world, which was probably the most prominent in america at the time. These men, while they moaned the press didnt like them, they cultivated the press. They based the circumstances in a different medium then today but almost identical in terms of political viewpoints and philosophical complexity as the press is today for politicians and leaders. Another footnote, if any of you are interested in the subject of the civil war and the press, there is an annual conference at the university of tennessee chattanooga that deals with that very subject every year. I think it is actually free. It is not an expensive trip. If you are interested in that subject, go online to the university of tennessee and chattanooga at the communications department, and a sponsor the thing and julie the conference annually. Punitivewere actual damages taken against the press. General sherman and general meade had terrible relations at times from the press and the stories there are interesting. I would be remiss if i didnt give a shout out to my friend harold holzers book on lincoln and the power of the press, which won the lincoln prize year before last. Lincolnsot only works, but how the press work in the 19th century and particularly in the civil war. It gives you insight into how that institution is different and how it is the same today. A recommendation. This was something you mentioned earlier that i thought was a pretty good question regarding joe johnston. Was his postwar relationship with sherman, do that result in a loss of respect in the south for joe johnston . There wasnt much to lose. [laughter] for poor old joe. I dont think it did. In a way, johnston craved the approval and back patting from his opponents almost more than he did the people of the south. There always was a group within the south that looked upon joe johnston as a path not taken. A product of is saying and attacking jefferson davis. It is not that we love joe johnston, it is that we hate jefferson davis. Saying if only davis has selected a different strategy, if only he listened to joe. Ohnstons approach johnson always denied a fabian approach. It was forced on him. A large portion of the Southern Society that admired joe johnston and made him a hero in spite of his lack of success. What he wanted was approval north and histhe relationship with sherman gave him that. Do you want to add anything . Anyone else on that one . , andis one is for brian the rest of these questions are more specific to your topic and the overall topic of the conference. Do you see ben butler seemingly positive actions with an eye to his political advantage, or was there a genuine altra listed conviction behind them, particularly in new orleans . I think his wartime political ambitions have been overstated. There has been a lot of talk and scholarship suggesting there was angling for a one for the in 1864. Presidency i have not seen the evidence. He had a respect for abraham lincoln. They did not always agree, but they had a generally respectful relationship. I do not think the radicals were angling to put him up in 1864, and that threat has been a bit overstated. A lot of that comes to us from the diaries of some of lincolns cabinet members who were , gideon wellesis and edward bates and with their diaries. In large measure because they were flummoxed that lincoln refused to intervene in butlers in particularfolk pair they could understand lincolns refusal to do that. They suggest particular. They could not understand lincolns refusal to do that. I just do not see that. I think he has been overstated as a political opportunist during the war. E certainly is ambitious and he certainly will run in 1864 on the greenback ticket. He will have a postwar career in massachusetts. I really dont think politics is something he immediately announces he is going to subordinate to the union cause. He signals that in a number of these public addresses. He is a master at using public addresses to demonstrate that. He has been meeting with lincoln he had a meeting with lincoln after it came out in baltimore. He said i will not play politics. He understood the stakes. Even more importantly, he put his cunning legal mind and just the mastery he had of language to work on behalf of the union cause. Then, of course, very effectively play politics after the politics of reconstruction. Bryans talk intentionally ans talk minimally intentionally minimized the point. Couple points about butler. His campaign was not nearly as bad at it as it has been portrayed. They are both good books to Glenn Robertson gives you a different perspective on butlers performance. He was handicapped by his two commanders, who are incompetent. Grants, in his memoirs, has a very unfortunate phrase that has always followed ben butler, is that he was bottled up. If you look at any map of chesterfield county, you realize how ridiculous that statement is. Theer could easily cross river when he wanted, and he built a pontoon bridge across go topomattox river to the outskirts of petersburg any time. The only direction he couldnt go was west. That, i think, has influenced our opinion of butler. The last thing i will mention is that there is a very interesting episode in early july 1864 that involves butler and grant. I dont think it gets a lot of attention. Butler was, as brian said, unpopular with henry halleck. Grant had a pretty Good Relationship with butler, but there was impetus that maybe it was time to get butler out of the field command and put baldy smith in charge of the tactical operation. Orders were actually promulgated to that effect. The effect was to send butler back to fort monroe to be the administrative head of the department, but to give baldy smith the actual field command. Unaware of all of this. Smith was unaware of all of this. Smith went on furlough, went on leave for 10 days to take care of a sick relative, and all of the sudden, these orders come down and butlers chief of staff happened to be in washington and heard what was happening and tipped off the general ed he was about to get, and practicality, demoted. Butler goes to visit grant and confronts him with this allegedly order, and grant says, oh no, no, no, i dont want this at all. In fact, i want to give you the yourcore and was expand responsibilities. Baldy catches wind or that there is something going on. Smith was told to go see grant. Grant says you are out. Go home. Ben butler emerges and retains an expanded command. There is a lot of controversy about how that happened. How did it go from butler having orders i cant remember the name of the special order the number of the order, but it was written and published. All of the sudden, smith is out and butler is back in with an expanded command. I dont know exactly what that says. Baldy smith was a liar. His explanation is that there was present at his headquarters and a sometime in late june, when grant was so drunk that he threw up all over his horse and that smith knew that butler was going to use that against grant, and that was basically some kind of like mail. Blackmail. I dont know if you have delved deeper into that, but that is an example of how butler and grant had this relationship. If you like grant, and grant does like doesnt dislike butler, you have to wonder if grant is completely wrong. Whate backup on that is background order did butler have on lincoln that allowed lincoln to keep on having this man in command long after his usefulness, after the election of 1864 russian mark 1864 . There is a back up the bermuda 100 thing, did ben butler accomplish his mission . If you ask butler, he would say yes. [laughter] what were butlers orders . Was he to capture petersburg . No, he was not. He was supposed to go to richmond and collaborate with mead and butler would come up from the south side, and they would trap thes army between lees army between the two. He fortified the position it was safe. One thing he failed to do was to and he andailroad grant share responsibility in the first offensive, june 16 and 17, four butler is actually on the railroad and was tearing it up. His subordinates let him down, and they retreated back off the railroad in the face of less than overwhelming confederate force, and he was never able to get the railroad again. His failure, to cut the connection between richmond and petersburg on the railroad. Otherwise, butler would say i did everything i was supposed to do. To do thatpoint out the list of losers he loves is getting longer and longer as we go along. [laughter] imagine you study life as a mets fan in 1962. Being a white sox fan qualifies for that. I was just going to say that. We will move over to john bell hood. I have a couple questions for sam. This one is interesting. One, is there any evidence that hood during the spring hill campaign, and there are accusations. What if you found . I was sitting here and i was thinking, isnt this great that i may at a getting a car to pressure generals, and all the talk is been about then butler. [laughter] i am not used to this. I was enjoying being a spectator. Is, no, none,that zero. It is kind of hard, as we all know, it is difficult to disprove a negative, and actually the bulk of the work that was done on proving that disuse or that he did . , and i built on steves research. As i have said in my presentation last night, if you take sources and you start working backwards from source to source to source, quite often on a lot of things, you hit a dead end to where there is no source. If what happened with hood and laudanum was the first mention, and by the way, it is a lot easier to do now with internet and information so easily at hand, the first mention of john bell could and opiates could 1940. Iates was in it would have been 80 years after the fact or 75 years after the fact. In the biography, they are and theabout injuries biographer says something very passive or secondhand that other haveals or soldiers may used the bottom laudanum. I gave a couple of examples in my book. It builds and builds and builds until it is that some also gave a dosage that he took. Another one was alcohol. Laudanum. Ohol and he even mentioned he liked bourbon. It wasnt scotch. What may give an intellectual point on that and i didnt mention this last night, hoods papers that i found, it was one that astounded me, was the original handwritten Daily Journal of hoods darbyian of John Thompson hood wass not where injured. He was there later. I am convinced it was from a fire, just from the medical description of how hood was positioned. Darby arrives two days later and takes charge of the case. I guess it is the 1860 three theion 1863 version of journal that he has. He gave a detailed description of the condition every day. The entire report runs from september 20 or september 22, and the last entry is in late november in richmond when hood has completed his rehabilitation. Thehe report, darby gives medication that hood is being given every day, gives the dosage every day, and often if the effect. Reasonable when i say reasonable, i checked with physicians, reasonable dosages of morphine or morphea as they called in at the time, only at night and was only given morphine at night to induce sleep. October, late october, darby starts winning hood off of the morphea. He cuts down on the dosage and slept lastrding, night without morphea, continues to sleep without morphea. Weaned off of the only opiate that was mentioned, and it was to induce sleep. Discovered ing i the papers, and again, it is the absence of evidence, there were 59 letters that hood wrote to his wife anna wife, anna, in the 1870s as he traveled and sold insurance. There are 59 letters, and i transcribe them all, and there is not a single mention of any medication, other than he was in savanna and he had a head cold and he mentioned i wish you would have packed something. There was no mention of pain. There is one mentioned in st. Isis and he said is it it i see on the sidewalk so i thought it best not to go out today. There is only one mention of his handicap condition and zero mention of pain and no mention of any medication whatsoever. Absence ofadding the witnesses, requisitions, or anything from his positions, and the fact that nothing was ever mentioned about it until 1940, and it was never mentioned even by hoods rivals and adversaries, which there were many, that it is pretty much disproven. Anyone, andis for especially for john. Did general poker receive his head injury before or after a battle . If before, could this have been a factor in his performance . 3,on the morning of may which was the third day of major combat, hooker was on the upper for of the chancellor house, and a pillar of the house was struck by an artillery shell and fired from his old growth. It split the pillar, and a portion of the pillar struck hooker, and he was knocked unconscious. He was unconscious by his own account for 30 minutes, and other witnesses suggest he was insensible for the same time. It was very clear that he suffered what we would call today a traumatic head injury. Disorientation and the lack of sluggishness if any of you have had a head injury. I have had a couple of concussions in my life, and they are difficult to deal with. Others confuse that for a drunken stupor. Some have suggested he drank to medicate himself. Asl work at the park for long as i did, and i dont know what his views are, but i have not seen any real evidence to suggest that hookers disability and the effects were real. There is no question about that. That dysfunction was that from a head injury and not from alcohol. What do you think . Effect of hisent performance after the head injury . I dont there is any question about that. After wheeling fiercely independent command that often ran contrary to the wishes of his subordinates, he retreated into the collective thinking of a war counsel in the days following that, although he did largely ignore the advice of his senior commanders underneath him , and decided ultimately to retreat against the orders. I do not think there is any question that there is the ability to focus, the ability to really work problems through in a traditional way are deeply affected when you have a head injury like that. Theact, that is one of primary symptoms of a head injury like that. He did revert. He recognized his disability to a council, perhaps also counsel is a great way to distribute the responsibility. He ultimately, and through many of his subordinates, agreed with his favored commanders under him. Daniel butterfield is the most obscure important figure in the history of the army of the potomac. I dont think there is any question that the head injury had a profound effect on hooker and on the battle of chancellorsville. This one is for steve. It is basically about the relationship between grant and buell. There really wasnt a relationship between grant and buell. They really only met one time. That was at shiloh. There wasnt really any real opportunity to have a sort of relationship. So basically, whatever existed was through official correspondence. And the performance together on the second day of the battle . The performance on the second day is largely because where grants armie retreated army grants army retreated. There was a slight ravine. The arrival of buells troops were fresh from transporting and thrown into what the confederates thought would be a fairly defensive position the next morning. They were not prepared for what buell and grant had planned for them early the next day, on monday. Collectively, they managed to pull out of defeat a fairly prominent victory. Questions atwo sickly are about civil war research. This is a good one are strictly about civil war research. How has the recent research changed any aspect of the Civil War History as opposed to what was going on before that . That one. Start with largely because that was the question earlier about the press. One of the things that has happened in our profession is that things became digitized. Before that, everything was either microfilmed or archived. I can remember when i was chair of the history department, one of the things i did was purchase a microfilmed reader with extra funds. When i was working on the latest book, i decided to read three or four newspapers for everyone of the northern states for every day of the war. I would come in early and decide to read whatever newspaper for the entire war years. Xeroxed hundreds of articles when we talk about the importance of the press, it was incalculable about how important the press was. For me, the way to use the press was to use it the way the readers of the 19th century would use it and how they used information and how editors informed and instructed the leadership. Conduitame the great between what was going on at the front and how it was interpreted at home and how home responded to that. After the battle of fredericksburg, one of the things that some of the new england newspapers did, it and for example, the bangle or, all the battles at fredericksburg. It was incredible and the readership that came from it and the letters that came in from that to the editor or you just got caught up in how the public used that information to gauge their mobilization, their patriotism, their frustration. You could see it with articles in the press and in many ways letters to the governors. They would click it views of the newspaper and send it along with their letter about their outrage and condemnation. The press was extremely vital. These days, everything is digitized, so there are a number of newspapers you couldnt get on microfilm 25 years ago. Today, you can look at the main farmer, a little local paper that no one thinks of, but their printing the same types of information. The local to national to new york times, you still see the usage of the press in a way that helps inform the public, and how they publicly asked to that. I thought it was fascinating. One of the things i wanted to do i thinkretire maybe, that would be a great way to use andpress as instructional, how we digest information and how we as a nation have digested information, especially during work. Can i jump into this a little bit . I am the oldest person on this panel. I will adopt my role as crotchety old man, and say that i am concerned on a level i cant really articulate a bit about Research Methodology that digitize of so many sources has to dot remarkably easy all of your research from your computer console. As a crotchety old man, i think that is unfortunate. Not many people have the experience am head of finding the proverbial chest of old papers in the attic. That almost never happens. It is less likely to happen if research consists of pushing buttons on your console and getting copies on the screen. Dont get me wrong, it is wonderful. When i did my book on ligand, i was in the National Archives and someone said, you know, all these are online you dont have to do this. Not only were they online, there was a photograph of the original document and a transcription so you could compare one with another. I said, had with this, im not going to drive into d. C. Anymore. Even after i took advantage of that, i found something lost. Richohnston had a very respondents. I was holding the original papers in my hand. That is kind of cool. I think the next generation of historians will probably not experience that. I did my masters thesis on the crisis in maine. You mentioned the papers. Every paper. It took about a year to find all of them. Most of my research was trying to find newspaper accounts for when you finally find Something Like the maine farmer, which is of skirt obscure, you do get that sense of a kabul schmidt. Sense of accomplishment. Hand, i have to top that. [laughter] at the Historical Society where Joe Johnstons letters to his wife are housed, paper was inscarce, they would write cursive on one side, and turn it over on a thin onion skin paper and write back and forth. Bleedss to to both , and then they turn it over and wrote again. Reader that. Read that. A couple of years ago i took three chapters and decided to see what percentage of the footnotes for each chapter i could have done and documented online through online resources. I was surprised at the results. Right around one out of their free for citations in that book was available online. Yes, there is a tremendous amount available online, no, if you want to write a really important and great book, you cannot do it by writing or doing research solely online. It is just impossible. More have about five minutes. This is the traditional last question. Of our to ask each one authors but they are reading now or what book they might recommend that we read. Lets start with brian. Lets go down the line. I will say the most recent book that i read that if found impressive is a book by Jonathan W White called midnight in america. The subtitle is darkness, sleep in dreams in the civil war. It is a really thoughtful study. It has an Excellent First chapter on exhaustion, among common soldiers which i found particularly enlightening. Into 500 dream reports that he finds from andiers, civilians, slaves, it was really for me a profound meditation on the weight the war really the way the war annexed peoples lives and the way it was intruding on their dreams. I found it to be fascinating and keeping in the recent trend of history are graffiti, getting away from the war as an event and thinking about it as a complicated experience. It is a good 10 to be a civil war historian. We will see much more work that will help us eliminate the way the that authors spoke your two weeks ago and it was really fascinating. I do recommend it. I am reading free books at once. Are reading two books right now. One is called mistakes were made, but not by me which should be required reading for every freshman so they learn how to apologize, even when they are not sure they are right. The other is never caught which is a story about a judge who is a slave who escapes to enslaved term her with George Washington while he is the president in pennsylvania. Nsylvania laws prohibit residency can be established after one year. A judge has to be returned to virginia for a number of weeks or months. So that he can retain slaves. This is on that list. I am also reading the election of 1860 which i find fascinating. Anything by michael holt i find terrific. The last book i read i am not going to identify because i did not like it and i do not want to say bad things about someones hard work on national television. The book i am reading now is which issins book illuminating and well done, and much appreciated. To one of the earlier questions, i am astonished at the amount of historical work that has been done on memory in the last 25 years. It is has fundamentally altered how we write our books, how we interpret to the public, i would suggest any of you who have not read some of that emma dont read it all because it will eventually kill you [laughter] it is so voluminous now, but it is important, some of that is important to read. I would start with race and reunion which is a thoughtful book. It is being challenged right and left these days but still a powerful argument. Before i answer that question i just want to take a second to express what i think was a wonderful conference. [applause] there are lots of people responsible for that. I see two of them standing over here. If you have any idea of the amount of detail, to physically get ready for a conference like this and have it executed, just ask patrick and his staff about how many details that he has had to manage. His daughter down there [laughter] that was good. Jerry does tremendous work, and is invaluable to all of us. Of course, no one knows better than i do, the multiple tasks that a executive director has to a college in order to pull one of these things off. Not the least of which is the challenge of crafting an original and very clever and absolutely hilarious reference to my hairline. [laughter] book. As george knows, my reading tends to be focused on military history because of what i do. Leading tours and giving talks on military history, there is so much out there that if i stray from that path, i am going to be way behind. In that regard, i have to say the obvious and that is ordinary book on petersburg, which is just as good as his first four. If you have not caught to that yet, i would certainly recommend it. The book i am reading that is not about the civil war is one that has been out for probably almost a decade, it is called what to god has rocked and it is in the history of america of the United States. It is the study of the United States between 1815 and 1848. It is an absolutely brilliant book. And if youre not familiar with decades leading up to the civil war era, then i would recommend howells book on what to got wrought. What i read recently, it is a sad story because the author died in a tragic auto accident fairly recently. Elizabeth a brown priors six encounters with lincoln. Categorizeow how to the book. That is not a criticism. It is a very original piece of work. It is not really a biography, as the title suggests, six different encounters, she talks about soldiers, frederick douglass, indians, women, throws in some shakespeare, it is gloriously written. Researched, no matter how much you read on lincoln or the civil war, you will learn from this book. You will enjoy the book. And you will be deeply saddened we will not have any more books from this author. I have spent the last 10 years reading all world war ii books. Because i have written a couple in that decade and i have a gigantic one coming out this spring on world war ii at sea, all navies, all navies all theaters, so i do not have as much time as i would like to do civil war stuff. I do think is 2017 is turning year just as 2009 was the of lincoln when you cannot turn around without bumping into a new lincoln book, this seems to be the year of grant. Ron whites new biography and biography. Rnows new pages, it will keep you busy for a while. And almost simultaneous with the publication of that is the publication of a new annotated version of grants own memoirs, edited by john marzo lack. And some of his assistance. Two of themul about together is the grants memoirs is it focuses on the war years. Finishes the story that grant himself did not finish as he was writing his own memoirs. I would recommend both of those. Actually writing a book, not reading one right now. Awares i guess we are all situation with Civil War History, monuments, that sort of thing, i a few months ago decided i am going to compile, and to somehow or another construct and present in an efficient way i have spoken to some of the fellows ex confederates. What a lot of confederates did after the war. They didad lives more in their lives than yankees for four years. Am doing,earch that i i am reading a lot of books and crimson confederates, most of the compilations, crimson confederates, yells confederates, bobby kirks book on staff officers, army of northern virginia, as you are warners book, and i am compiling what former confederates did after the war that contributed to the building of america. The four generals who served in the United States army, spanishamerican war, but that i but i did not know much else. Fournd out there were Supreme Court justices, a secretary of the navy, secretary of the interior, two attorney generals, these are all federal, and so forth. Now i am focused on right almost exclusively and i say sadly, because i would rather be reading and studying and filling voids of ignorance in my mind on other things, but i have been studying on what to confederates did after the war to put what is going on today in context. That concludes our composing them as far as the panels go. Please everybody stick around because we want to drop raffle , soes and we will finish up i will ask jerry to, and i think it is a fitting and proper that will pick out the winning numbers. That concludes todays live coverage of the historical park civil war symposium from peter petersburg, virginia. You can watch todays coverage by visiting our website, cspan. Org history. You are watching american youre watching American History tv. 40 hours of programming on American History every weekend on cspan3. Follow us on twitter at cspan history for information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest history news. Welcome to portland, maine, on American History tv. Most people think of lobsters, lighthouses, and beautiful coastlines when you mention maine. Over the next two hours, with the help of our spectrum cable partners, we will explore all of those and more to bring you the history of the portland area. Coming up, a visit to the portland headlight, maines oldest lighthouse. Portland headlight is a symbol of maine. It represents what people think of maine from maybe other states. We have the rocky coastline here , it is a lighthouse, there is a lobster boats going back and forth all the time, you see the islands, sailboats, all the activities that probably people think of a maine visit would be. We take a boat to fort gorgeous, a civil war era just off the portland kos. We are on hog island ledge. Where they built for gorgeous in 1858 to help defend portland harbor. We have completed an 18 6 it was completed in 1865 and was built with two sister forts off to the south. Its camel on how silent. They were designed to work in conjunction with each other to defend the harbor. Everyone thinks for gorgeous is a civil war fort when it was funded long before, and it was approved by congress. Things that occurred much earlier. We begin our feature on portlands history, talking about lobstering