Transcripts For CSPAN3 History Bookshelf 1876 Disputed Presidential Election 20240711

Colleague, michael holt. Michael holt is the professor of American History here at the university of virginia. He was educated at princeton and learned his ph. D. At Johns Hopkins university. With time offer visiting professional ships at cambridge, yale, stanford and other institutions. He has been at the university of virginia since 1974. He has written widely and deeply about 19 century political history. For many years his writing focus on the years before the civil war. Both the political crisis of the 19 fifties has become the standard for advanced college courses. His 1999 book, the rise involve the american w. H. I. P. Party, draconian politics in the onset of the civil war, was the runner up for the lincoln prize, his most often described as magisterial. And that is not just because of his 1296 heft. More recently, he has written of the reconstruction period following the war. By one vote the disputed election of 1876, it tells the story of americas closest election which perhaps, not coincidentally, had the highest percentage of eligible borders participating in any election. 81 and a half percent. Please welcome, michael holt. Thank you, george. It was the 18 fifties, that was the civil war. The other day i was going into the cvs at Barracks Road Shopping Center and somebody handed me this Million Dollar bill. I looked at the back first and it said, the Million Dollar question is, are you going to go to heaven when you die . And i ceased to look at that anymore and instead looked at the front. And who would sit on this . This 1 Million Dollar bill . Rutherford berkshire hayes, the republican winner of the disputed election of 1876. People today who think about the election of 1876 admittedly are small but intensely curious crowd, probably think of it primarily as a precursor to the notorious bush gore contest of 2000. It is no coincidence, that three years after the 2000s election that there are two new books about the election of 1876 appeared. And with that 2000 contest clearly aligned. One was by a bitter democrat, its title says it all, fraud of the century, and the stolen election of 1876. I. E. , the republicans have stolen elections before. The other was by a former chief justice, william red quest which was a sort of subtle defeat, or subtle defense of the role of Supreme Court justices in 2000 by talking about their role in settling the election of 1876. There were parallels sometimes, sometimes eerie parallels between the two. In 1876, as in 2000, the losing democratic candidate had a majority of the popular vote. As in 2000, electoral votes were in dispute, including the electoral votes of florida but also the electoral votes of South Carolina and louisiana. And they were being disputed, all three of those states sent contesting sets of votes to be counted. This democratic reelect ors and republican electors and as in 2000, republicans in washington, including Supreme Court justices, counted refer furred behaves as the republican candidate and they counted him in. Actually the dispute over the electoral votes is not what interested me in this election i was originally approached by editors of a new series, they were for the university of canvas for university elections, they said, could you rate one on 1848 or 1860 . And as george said, i spent a lot of time writing about the antebellum period, i didnt want to do it, i said why not 1876 . And why would i want to do that . I had written some chapters in a new version of a text book called civil war reconstruction on reconstruction chapters on reconstruction, and i was puzzled but by two things, one was the admission of colorado. And it was this Centennial State in the summer of 1876. Why i wanted to know did this happen, because the admission of colorado with its three electoral votes changed the game. Arguably it was the single most important thing from stopping children from winning the election because they had colorado not been admitted as a state, the winning electoral vote majority wouldve been 184, which is exactly wet tilt and got. He was beaten from 185 284. Absent colorado, he wouldve won no matter what happened no matter the votes from the south. And since the democrats had the 90 seat majority in the house of representatives in 1876, i wondered how could they have been so stupid to let colorado in . And the answer is, they didnt, when the republicans still control both houses of congress, they arrange the bill which democrats allowed to pass when they couldve stopped it. It said, if election is held and a constitution is ratified before july 4th 1876, the President Shall admit it as a state without further action from congress whatsoever. The republicans neutered future congress when they still controlled both houses of congress. Two other questions interested me. The election of 1876, it is an anomaly in the sense of what happens to Political Parties during depressions them. This election occurred in the midst of a severe depression, the depression of 18 seventies was the most depression in the 19th century. And the pattern has been an american politics, this is true and 18 thirties, in 18 nineties, and it is certainly true in the 1930s. The in party takes official asking in the off year Congressional Elections that proceed a president ial election and then they get beaten in the fall, this happens with the wigs in 1840 and the republicans in the 1890s of the democrats in the 1930s. They show lack the president ial campaign. That did not happen. In the 18 seventies, the democrats won big and they had the biggest turnaround for congressional seats and they switched hands for the republicans to the democrats in 1874 in 1875. But then the republicans won the election, the president ial election even though the democrats at the time, i know they didnt win, it they stole it. The third thing that interests me is this election is mentioned by george. When i was asked to write about this, i didnt know this. It had the highest turnout of voters proportionately, of any election in American History. 81. 8 , and that was males over 21 apparently they voted. Now some of this turnout was clearly fraudulent. The state of South Carolina reported a turnout of the electorate, the edge field county, which was in upstate county in the Savannah River, they reported two thousands more votes that there were adult males in the county. There was a reason for this. Hadfield is right across the Savannah River across from augusta, georgia. And thats where the masters is. A lot of georgians came across the river and voted in South Carolina and then went home and voted in georgia to push up the total. But this total turnout also includes Southern States where the turnout was artificially depressed, were repressed, by democratic violence against blacks. So they wouldnt vote republican. I want to read you, i think i have this part, i think i have the right spot. Let me give you some examples of this. In louisiana, three parishes of east baton rouge and West Baton Rouge had 221 whites on the red straighter vote and 300 blacks, they reported together eight majority of 3000. The registration list in west parish, they reported 406 whites and 2200 blacks yet the revolt was 485 and 24 hayes. In the registered blacks outnumbered the whites, 2100 to 8000, yet the return showed not a single vote for the republican haze and 1704 tilden and this i find fascinating. This is the one thing from this top that you might remember going away from it, but we see in a parishes were described as being bulldozed, bulldozed. And you think back for a minute, we have a minute, this is 1876, there arent gasoline engines yet, there arent bulldozers, why were these parishes spoken of as being bulldozed. The answer is, as one reporter from the New York Times wrote back, going down to louisiana after the election. The term bulldozed comes from the practice of whipping blacks with a bull whip if they said they are going to vote republican. And that is the source of the term we still use. It was giving blacks the dose of the ball whip. If they dared to vote republican. One thing that is very clear we, had this been a fair election, had southern blacks been allowed to vote, vote freely and fairly, the republicans would have run away with the election we. But there is suppressed votes and they are kept from voting in most Southern States except for the three and some of those are the republicans still controlled. They controlled the returning votes. I was thinking about this this morning. I used to play tennis with a guy when i still taught at yell who came up with a great line. They came up with a line one day and said, a good call beats a good shot every time. Out. Out. A good count, if the republicans could count the votes, a good count could be the actual returns anytime. I want to get to the dispute in a minute, but let me first of all explain this high turnout. This unprecedented and unequal turnout of voters. It wasnt the candidates, although the contrast between the candidates itself is very interesting. Candidates of course did not campaign in the 19th century. That was for bolton, you didnt go out, other people campaigned for you. The two candidates were interesting, actually there were three candidates. Actually there were four, there was a green back candidate. But rutherford b. Hayes was in his third term in his governor mess in ohio, he was a veteran of the civil war who enlisted as a major in ohio regimen at the age of 39. Was wounded four times, he was them a very hearty guy who was the father of eight living children. Hayes was an interesting guy, he was a real bibliophile. He loved books. He loved reading. And his collection of books became the basis for the president ial library in the family on this state in vermont, ohio where i spent a lot of time. We ate dinner every night at apple bees, you know how small town is. He was actually introduced in the speech, but he actually said it, he is a scholar and a gentleman from. And he was introducing hangs to the republican convention. The republican candidate could not have been more death different, he was a small, precis, lifelong bachelor. He made a fortune as a lawyer before, during and after the civil war, he was serving his one term as governor of new york at the time of this election. But he was a very wealthy guy, he had a big house on grammar c park there. It is now called the National Artists club, it was his estates, much over the protest over his nephews and things. One of my colleagues has written about this. It was his estate that was used to build new york public library. That massive building on 42nd street and fifth avenue. That is tilden money that built that thing. And then the third candidates, lived across from grandma sea park at the end of lexington avenue from tilden, this was peter cooper, the immensely wealthy guy from new york city. He was the candidate of a third party, the green back party and he wanted to keep the supply of green backs, these on backed paper money ample aunt in oppose contraction. Interestingly enough, coopers son in law who was in new york lived in grandma seat park on lexington avenue,. Here it was the National Chairman of the National Democratic Party Running the campaign. He what is the guy who won and a was a threeway mirror race against roosevelt and henry george. He went lives around the corner and in any event, i dont think it is the candidates that explain the turnout so what were the issues . This is a campaign that occurred in the midst of a serious depression. There is extensive unemployment, extensive suffering, yet Neither Party offered any proposal for relief for getting people back to work. Forgetting anybody to do anything about the depression, this up with one exception. But there is a reason for, this and that is the target of both parties of this campaign were it was people known as liberal republicans. They emboldened the republican ticket in 1872. They dominated someone else and regarded as an independent vote. Both parties were trying to attract the liberal republicans who are against spending any money. The Government Spending any money. And indeed, tilden, this is the democrat candidates and he announces in his letter accepting the democratic nomination, about 6000 words, long and it went on forever and ever, he gave his explanation for what had caused the depression. The problem, he said, is that the government taxes too much. The government has taken too much money out of the economy by taxes and robbing it of this base, these funds for potential investment in the economy and the way to bring about economic recovery is to cut taxes. This is the democratic solution to the candidates. Aside from the green backers, they didnt offer any hope of economic relief, so what were the issues . Well, one that i dont want to get into, it happens to be money and it had to do with this supply of United States notes, or the socalled green backs that were in circulation and what it would take to get back to a Gold Standard of payments. I wont get into it other than to say both parties were split and east west lines about what to do with this. There are still some green backs in circulation, or at least in peoples wherever they keep money, as souvenirs. When i was growing up, we had silver certificates with the blue stamp and Federal Reserve was the green stamp. And then we have these United States notes with the red stamp. I think it is now confined to dollar bills with jefferson on it. If you get those with the red stamp, that is that this note is legal tender for public and private. So there are still some of those around. But what to do about those . You have to contract the supply of them to get back to a Gold Standards, and that was one issue. Another issue that was very dear to the republicans, that was an open attack on catholics, a denunciation of a catholic threat to the Public School system. This was all fictitious but this was certainly a winner, hayes thought it would be the issue that would win the election. Saying that catholics are a threat to the Public School system. A big issue for democrats of course, the republicans had to go along but it was reform. We were out reform government, the democrats just ticked off every remember this was an election with grant still in the white house. Theres so much corruption with grants administration. The democrats are saying were going to clean up government, the republicans are saying, we will cleanup government. We have hays who is as clean as you can get them, but the reform issue, which was administrative reform, lets get honest people in office, not economic reform of any kinds, but that was a big issue. Largely responsible for the turnout is that the democrats did not believe in that this was an old republican tactic since the civil war. It refers to accusing the democrats as being the party of the confederacy. The party of confederates. Who the warning here is not promising any more programs to protect black voters of the south, but if the democrats win, the confederates are going to get back in power. And if the confederates get back in powder, you know what theyre going to do. Me do you know what theyre going to do . They are going to pay all those slave holders with federal money for all the value, the dollar value of what they lost because of emancipation. And i have to say, the democrats helped the republicans make this charge. Because one of the things they did, they let the republicans take over the house in 1875, the first thing they do is fire all these clerks that had been hired. Almost all of whom have been Union Army Veterans with one arm, one leg, they are all fired. They replaced them all with Confederate Army veterans. Republicans say, its going to be union soldiers, instead of rebel soldiers if the democrats win this election. And i think, the bloody shirts was probably the reason for the large turnout from the north. 99 in iowa, 98 in indiana, these are huge turnout in this election of the eligible voters, but it also cause this enormous increase in the white vote in the south because they saw this as a last chance to get rid of federal approaches. And there is a demonstrable increase in the turnout in the south, that helps to explain the turnout. I was gonna give you some great examples from this election, but let me move on. What was the diffuse and how is it handled . Both sides claimed they carried louisiana, florida and South Carolina. They were competing electoral votes to washington as i said. Who won those states was going to be determined by boards that were controlled by republicans and all three states. They were the last three states republicans controlled during reconstruction that. It was clear the morning after the election that tilden had 184 electoral votes and hayes had 166 and these 19 electoral votes from the south were being disputed. Democrats, by the way, try to steal vote that they didnt deserve from oregon, by challenging an elector. But the real disputes was these 19 votes from the south. And just like 2000, i think it was the most exciting president ial election of all. Maybe because it lasted for so long. Them both sides lawyers up, at least they did in florida and South Carolina, and louisiana they just carried cash and the returning board was obviously a presale in louisiana. And they offered for both democrats and republicans, if you give me 100,000 dollars i will make sure that you get the votes. But, this is still the first election where both parties in South Carolina and, its actually in all three states, where the parties go to the courts. This is the first president ial election in the 19th century that i know of where people go to courts seeking rulings that are going to give them an advantage, and the use of courts in florida was particularly interesting, a democratic judge gave to the democratic electors to serve on the republican electors. By what right do you hold this office, you should appear in court to prove that you deserve the electoral vote for that state. Later, the Supreme Court of florida rules in fact that the democrats have won the election, interestingly enough the people who settled the election in washington rejected that claim for exactly the same logic they use. The constitution specifies that state legislature should determine how electors are chosen, state courts have no say in the matter whatsoever, its beyond their jurisdiction. Only state legislature should decide this. Contested electoral votes are set up in washington and the question is, how do we count them . How do we count them . The 12th amendment to the constitution specifies that electors are to meet on a certain day, it was december 6th, 1876 in this case. It was a casting of the votes, have them signed by the governor and put them sealed, send them to the president and send them to the senate. Its a meeting of the joint meeting of the house, whether it was a joint session was actually hotly disputed at the time. But a joint meeting in the House Chamber we incident. The 12th amendment says the president so open the votes. The language is weird, and then the vote shall be counted. Never in American History has the imposition of the passive voice meant so much. Counted by whom . You want to avoid the passive voice. Counted by whom . There was a massive dispute, it means the president of the senate could count them because the senate had a majority, the democrats had a huge majority in the house of representatives. They say, no way. If you insist on that we are simply not going to hold a joint session and we have to go over to the House Chamber for this. We wont count the vote. Nobody will have an electoral majority, because we will not count any votes. But we will pick the president ourselves. Where we will use the 22nd joint decision, which they had repeal but there is a big question whether one chamber can repeal a joint resolution, this allowed several judges to say, this is flatly unconstitutional. You have to challenge one or all electoral votes from the states, the house and the senate got to separate chambers, if any house upheld this challenge, the electoral vote should reflect that. The electoral votes are a challenge from the senate. But so there is a stalemate, they come up with this idea of forming wet became known as the federal electoral commission. And this called for five members of the senate, five members of the house, three democrats and two republicans and five members of the justices of Supreme Court. They all had to hear the disputed returns when they came up, the way the members of the court picked, it was the bill forming this commission, and they cited certain circuits. In those days the Supreme Court justices still wrote circuit, they want such and such a judge. We want to democrats into republicans. Those four guys were going to pick the fifth member, it had to be from associate justices. Everybody believed that this was going to be david davis. In fact, the judge from illinois who is running lincoln s campaign in 1860. But the day before Congress Votes on this bill, the democrats in the Illinois Legislature elect david davies as the next u. S. Senator from illinois, to replace a republican. Davis refuses to serve, he says, im not a judge. He refuses to serve on this commission. And the four guys pick another guy, Joseph Bradley from new jersey. What happens . To give you the bottom line, lets leave some time for questions, the votes are counted in the joint session, this is a picture of the actual painting of the joint section of where the votes were counted. When they got to florida, the disputed returns are sent to this commission and there and on allbs this fight over one dispute from oregon. They always vote eight to seven on all the disputes to give the votes to hayes. Eight to seven. There is another one vote. Hayes is counted in. The democrats and this is the scene i want to leave you with. The democrats still didnt get up, when the whistle was basically saying this commission was going to rule for the republicans, because there were eight republicans on it, people start writing. And they say, we want you to go to court and get to serve with hayes, and one guy says, i want you to get rid of him and be a bad integration on Inauguration Day and after he takes the oath of office, before he gives his inaugural address, i want you to serve it on him. Right there on the steps in the capital. So he spends all four years in court trying to defend his right to hold office. That would have been a scene for the history books. Thank you. [applause] i invite those who would like to ask questions to the professor to join me in the back of the room in just a minute. We will have time for a few questions. Id like to kick it off by asking what difference does this election make . I know you are doing your book that the policy difference in the two parties a slight. And probably, if this election had gone to the democrats, it might very well not have made a great deal of a difference in what happened over the next several years. And you argue that the restoration of political equilibrium is the important legacy of the election of 1876. Could you expand on that a bit . Thanks, george you did read the book. Holy cow. First of all let me expand on why i dont think it will make a difference. Hes is often accused of betraying the last vestige of reconstruction but people say he removed troops by the remaining states, he didnt remove troops, he moved them away from state capitals. But granted given that order, when he was inaugurated it wont destroy. But can we believe that if a democrat got in there he wouldnt have removed the troops from the south . There was an attempt, but it was just tell me to get a constitutional amendment, the same amendment prohibiting public support, public support for catholic schools. At that time by the, way the bill of rights hadnt been incorporated, as its called by courts. People said it only applies, this provision of religion aid, religion if they want to. But there was never a chance that constitutional amendment would have passed, even though it would be a issue in the campaign. Bc payments were resumed on terry first, 1879, just as the republican law called for. I dont think it would have been any faster and certainly not any slower when won the election. The one area that one has to guess and that is that we know that there was a massive violent strike by rail road workers in 1977, and that he ordered the troops to break up the strike in the cities. Its difficult for me to believe because tilden was tickles to the railroads, and it took money from railroads, and merging Railroad Companies that he wouldnt have done the same thing for the owners of the railroad company. But thats iffy. The equilibrium that im talking about is that you know, republicans had won four elections in a row going into president ial elections and. Row they controlled both houses of Congress Since 1860, it was a dominant majority, and what happened in this election because of the increase and the democratic vote especially in the south. The parties grew towards equilibrium, and, indeed until the 1890s except for a twoyear stretch we have the same situation where the democrats controlled the house, and republicans controlled the senate. And in many northern states, the parties became much more competitive than they had been for the remainder until the socalled footer realignment of the 1890s. Whereas it was this election, and this election, although you can see it from 1874, that really, you really have the real evidence of a one Party Democratic south, which really shows up in congressional kykmv6, from thr Confederate States despite the dispute over the electoral votes high, i have a couple questions relating to today my first is if the u. S. System is so great i would think that there wouldnt be somebody disputed elections. I was wondering if you think if its inevitable in a country like ours were discussion so valued or if theres a better way. My second question is do you think the issues today are not as mobilizing as the issues of the 1866 election or is there another reason white voter turnout is so low . Good question. I dont think the issues, if i could take your second question first, are us mobilizing because the civil war was still fresh on peoples mind in 1876 and one republicans said the dam rebels are going to get control over the national government, everything we fought for is going to be wasted, this was a issue with gut appeal, and whites in the south said we are fighting for white supremacy. They made no bones about it. The southern democrats there, the rhetoric was ugly. This was a issue. Also the parties had to work very hard to get up that kind of turnout. And there were big machines. Most of you probably dont know it. My colleagues from the History Department do. But in the 19th century, state governments and local governments didnt pilots. It was up to Political Parties themselves to print and distribute ballots so it took a lot of man power to get those ballots to the polls. They would canvas voters. Theyd find out beforehand who would vote for whom and they worked very hard to get those people to the polls. With regard to your other question, but it seems to me in fact, that what is remarkable about American History from 1788 and on, is how few disputes there have been about the results of the president ial elections. We had to go to the house of representatives. And i dont know. How many people here know of the original constitution before the 12th amendment, it said the top five candidates and electoral votes would go to the house, rather than the top three which was in the 12th amendment. We had an 1800 and 1824, you had elections go to the house of representatives. You clearly had a violent reaction to the results of the 1860 election. It promotes session in the deep south, but you dont have people disputing the results. They could be angry about the results. Again, it seems to me what is interesting is how few the disputes have been. I dont know how many there have been. I thought the statistics that you gave about how the winds have the blacks voting in the south standing. My question is werent there federally controlled troops in the south that republicans could have used, it would have made such a huge difference in the election to ensure that they were protected and could devoted . There were very few troops but grant thats a good question. Grant had ordered troops to South Carolina, because of so called red shirts or rifle clubs refused to turn in weapons when the republican government asked for it. But all of those troops were stationed at the polls. They were there and there were federal supervisors in the southern as well as northern cities at the polls. With the democrats did was stop them before they got to the pools, out of sight of the troops to keep them from voting. Let me give you one example, its sort of hair raising. But it was testimony before the returning board in louisiana. From a black woman, and she comes under gird of soldiers and relates the following story. A gang of whites came to her house two days before the election. They asked my husband who he was going to vote for. I was standing there with the baby in my arms. He said he was going to vote republican. And they shot and killed him on the spot. They shot and killed the baby in my arms and the stabbed meat and gang raped me. This is what whites were doing in these states to intimidate blacks. Whats extraordinary actually if you look and take louisiana, the case we have a great senior thesis written by one of my former undergraduate students here, the guy leader clerk on the Supreme Court. He was a good guy but he did the study that found that black increased in 1876, from previous levels. But it also shows is that, we are about 60 of which had voted in 1982, 90 and voted in 1976 for the democrats. Huge increase in one turnout in one election. Professor, thank you very much. Really interesting topic, and interesting presentation. It brings to mind some of your comments with regards to a system, which affected the 1932 election as well as it was very prominently discussed in the 1960 election. Of the dead, or there are more votes cast than there were people present. Rumor has it happened in the chicago 1916 election. Any comments on those please . There certainly were rumors about that in chicago in 1960, and there probably was a basis to them. I think the catholic issue was more central actually in 1920 than it was in 1932, because out smith was the democratic candidate. But, comments on this. Well, i dont think dead people voted in South Carolina. I know the comment. I want to write this down so i remember it. Real people voted the just werent residents. Of the county where they voted, they voted from georgia. South carolina didnt have the registration list of voters. This one and of being the biggest challenge that democrats need in the South Carolina results just like the state constitution requires that voters be registered and if they havent been registered the whole constitution is to throw out the votes of South Carolina. Real people voted, they just voted illegally. But what i wrote down and i didnt get into this, what was feared by democrats when they found out that the republicans were going to florida in particular. Ants what was feared by republicans at the same time was that florida was a big state and most of the people lived in it in the Northern Counties but there were people down in key west, it took a long time for the vote to get in. And what republicans feared and legally manoeuvred by democrats, they wanted to find out, they wanted to hurry up the count of the vote and find out how many votes hayes has so they can rig the returns for these counties that had not turned in their votes yet. This is Lyndon Johnsons first election, when all those south texas votes, he waits to find out what he needs. And they are just up for him. Quick question, what do you see as the essential difference between 1876 and 2000, is it just voter intimidation . That is a good question. Voter intimidation is one of the big differences, the other difference is minor but it is intriguing to me. Its that there was some far more tribunals in florida in 2000, lets find a judge that is going to rule our way, then there was either in florida or South Carolina and 1876. You had odd things that South Carolina Supreme Court was able discussions of fraudulents to the general public, and did that matter in 1876 . There were a lot that were bitter of the ruse souls after the elections and there were a lot of people who considered haze a fraudulent president for most of his term, i happen to like hayes. I find a lot about him that is admirable. He was a scholar and a gentleman. Im sorry, remind me of the second question. Essentially just an age of expensive media coverage, how much did the Public Opinion matter, and what were the discussions of the electoral college. That is good, actually two things, the republican senator from indiana, martin, gets up in the senate and says we are going to have a crisis counting the electoral votes. And the republicans and the senate were hitting for big trouble if this happens. He said, what we have to do is change the way we count the electoral votes. And he proposed the constitutional amendment and said, he said that some beer is the electoral vote totals and they are wildly disproportionate to the popular vote totals. What we need to do, them we can have two statewide electoral their biggest concern returning board their reeked of corruption, everyone knew it was corrupt. Everyone knew their votes were for sale. It was a big pr campaign. And lets make sure that this north can accept that decision thats louisiana they werent concerned about Public Opinion. It was very upset. I dont particularly like tilden, i dont like his bequest to the public library, but he received he received scores and scores of telegrams and letters. I can raise 5000 troops tomorrow and were going to march on washington. And scores of letters like this, they are talking about appointing civil war veterans, George Mcallen to lead this Democratic Army and march the washington and the tilden said no. Nowhere we going to do that. I think it was his finest hour in this dispute. That we are not going to resort to armed force. Following the 2000 election, i was at a small breakfast were one of the chief council of the parties was talking about the election, he commented that it is not who votes that counts its who counts the votes that counts. That is a good call. That is a good shot. True in 2000, true in 1876. Thank you, michael halt. Up next on history bookshelf from the 2014 texas book festival in austin, a discussion on flooded johnson and Ronald Reagan presidency. The people are jonathan darman, and Chase Untermeyer who is the author of when things went right the dawn of the reaganbush administration but