Topics. Its one of the few places if not the only place where you can see and hear a lot of different voices and perspectives on a lot of different topics. We bring in authors who are wellknown but we also bring in authors that you might not know so well. They have a story to tell, they have something to say and so we bring that opportunity to our viewers with different voices. We are talking about isis and tears him the viewers and feedback is really vital to cspan in general. Thats part of our mission statement, trying to get viewers to participate. We spend a lot of time thinking about what our viewers would want. We listen to our viewers about who they want to hear and who they want to see. We take that into account. We will have call in program we can bring the viewers into the mix so they can talk to the authors as well. We have Facebook Comments and tweets and were getting that constant feedback for them. We go out to the festivals and do live programs and that the ability for the audience to interact with the author. That allows them to ask and answer questions and share their comments with the authors. We know there are so many people around the country who are big readers and interested in things like history and biography. Its not about having an author it up on stage and tell you what to think or tell you the history as they are saying it is, its about viewers actually asking questions and about that conversation. If the viewer wants to find out more information about book tv they can always go to our website book tv. Org. We have our schedule for the weekend. Its always available right on the side of our website page they can see all the programs we offer including indepth and after words in a general schedule for the weekend. They will find it on book tv. Org citizens have got to feel that their voice and vote matters and whether they cannot spare a single sent to help a person running for office or if they can write a big check, they are concerned, their struggles will be listen to and followed up on. Sunday night on q a, wisconsin senator Tammy Baldwin talks about her career in politics. They helped shepherd the change whereby senators were not appointed by their legislatures but demanded elections. I guess, the idea that it wasnt going to be the party bosses who made the decision of who the nominees were in smoke filled the back rooms, but rather the people who were going to get a chance to vote in free and fair elections. Sunday night on 80 string on cspan q and a. Tj stiles talked about custers trials trials. His biography of general George Armstrong custer. He is interviewed by Paul Andrew Hutton in this one hourlong event. Hello everyone. My name is Paul Andrew Hutton. J im a professor at the university of new mexico, just to the east. Welcome to the eighth annual tucson festival of the books. We want to especially thank cspan, book tv and Cox Communication for sponsoring this. This presentation will last an hour but i will talk for about 40 minutes and then well open it up for questions from the audience. Please go to the microphone there on either side to do your question. Immediately following, tj stiles will be autographing books in booth 153 booth 153 sponsored by the university of arizona bookstores. Books are available for purchase you like people to buy your books, dont you tj. Yes, it helps me write. Because you are here, your Tax Deduction helps us offer a programming free of the public and support critical literary programs in the community. Y. Become a friend in person today by visiting the south union website. Your gift makes a difference. I dont need to tell you what a fabulous book festival you have. Its absolutely a marvel. Out of respect for the authors, your fellow audience members let me tell you what i say to my students. I dont know why you have your phones with you, try to lose communication with the outside world for a while and lose yourself in the world of books. Please put them on mute. We were here together on this stage four years ago or five years ago. It was probably more than that. The years go by so quickly. You had just won the Pulitzer Prize and a prize for your fabulous book vanderbilt. Before that you had written jesse james, the last rebel which was very well received and your current book is custers trials, a life on the frontier of new america. They are. Tj lives in berkeley california with his family. You are already picking up prizes again. I just learned last night you learned earned the spur award for biography. Congratulations on that [applause]. Thank you as i mentioned, to get the award anyway is wonderful but from people who know a lot and have written a lot about custer is very, very nice. In 2012, Michael Okeefe published a twovolume bibliography on George Armstrong custer. There were 10,000 items. The annotated them all. 3000 of them were books. I think the logical firstt i hate mybegin with is tj, why custer . I hate myself. No. [laughter]readers and first of all i have to say thank you for coming here. I really do appreciate it. I love the chance to talk to readers and potential readers even more. Also, to have a conversation with Paul Andrew Hutton who is not just the great historian but a great writer and he has a book coming out this spring called the apache wars which, i had a chance to read it and its phenomenal. So to ha so watch for that please. So to have this conversation with not only a historian but a good writer is terrific. I could go on and give a whole spiel about custer and tell you why my book is justified but the subtitle asked lanes my whole approach. Sometimes you go into a subject because it hasnt been written about enough before or you feel like people have gotten the wrong and as i say, there is a lot of great writing as well as a lot of writing about custer and my approach was to change the camera angle. Im interested in how the modern United States came to be. People have focused on these very high profile aspects of custers life, first and foremost which is emphatically not to focus on my book. I do focus very much on his western career but also what i try to do is contextualize thewr parts in the civil war, thats a huge part part my book, with the lesserknown parts of his life and to show how he was engaged in all kinds of ways with the making of modern america, and how his notoriety and his fame was very much based on things that we dont associate with custer. Things like race and federal power and the new literary culture, and it was emerging in america and the rise of corporation and finance and wall street. The western story story in the civil war story and the place of women and the female characters in his life were so fascinating. I thought it was such a rich life thing complicated and volatile. There was a new way of looking at him that doesnt devalue the iconic parts but integrates it with things that people have known about but havent so much focus on. You certainly accomplish that task. When last we were here talking about vanderbilt, i was really just stunned by how beautifully written and what a magnificent work the vanderbilt book was. It had to be to win both the full surprise in the National Book award. I didnt know anything about vanderbilt. Ow i didnt know who he was or what he had done, but custer is a character character that i know a lot about. So what is even more astonishing to me, i learned so much from the vanderbilt book but ioo learned from this custer book as well. I learned a new way to look at custer. Of course like the vanderbilt of what you are doing is expanding biography. It couldve just as easily one a non fiction because it really is a book about american histore in the most tumultuous period, the civil war and the gilded age also the closing of the american frontier which custers last stand is the climactic moment of. So you treat the most spectacular moment of his life, his death which every other book focuses on and heads toward. And i just thought that was an incredibly bold decision. It fits in nicely with the tone in the structure of your book. That was a decision that i came to very early on which was to not have a final chapter or a final part of the book devoted to little big form but to try to treat it in a way that kind of reflects the experience that americans had that it was something to place offstage. Tr theyre trying to figure it outs after the battle was over. During the book, one reason why people like to write about custer is because the letters and the personal information really allows the writer to get into his life and even inside his head to a certain extent because he wrote about what he thought and felt so much. As a friend of his said, there was no there was just no doubt about what he was thinking. He was all out in the open. What you saw was what you got. S he was so motive and expressive and wrote so much that its very interior biography in a way that i couldnt write about jesse jaynes or vanderbilt about. Its personal relationship and his emotions in his daily struggles, his faults. But then after following such a biography like this, i was was literally writing over the horizon and waving goodbye and then i pick up the next epilogue and im giving this way, im sorry. The reno court of inquiry a couple years later, now you suddenly are jarred out of that experience of his life and now youre in the position of trying to figure out what went on. I was inspired in that idea by not only my idea to say this is not a book about little big corn. But also to say, to think about the effect when i read battle cry freedom. This is something i read a review that made me think about it and made me think yes that seeks. I had to when you to lincolns assassination, he doesnt describe it. He has this marvelous chapter of the civil war where John Wilkes Booth is wearing hes going to kill lincoln after he makes a speech saying maybe we should allow africanamericans to vote and then it ends with the next chapter starting the aftermath of the assassination. One of the great dramatic moments is completely offstage. Its such a powerful effect and it makes it more powerful. D so i thought, i want to have the impact of little big corn there, but i dont want to focus on it. I dont want to get swallowed up by such a huge event and make my book about that. How do i do that. So having it take place offstage was actually a way of saying yes its important, but also i can can never take you there. Not only is this book not about that, but its such a complex and difficult to understand event. So lets not even try. Lets just show how americans struggled with it. Then leave people within incomplete understanding because that is all we will ever have. I can almost see a movieer, w producer in hollywood sang custer, custer why do we want to do custer. Everybody knows how it ends and its a downer, but that is part of the unique mastery of the book. The subject is that the end is not the story. The story is how we get to the end which is, think about it, for all of us, that is what life is about. Its how we get to the end. Usually we dont dwell too much on the end. In custers. In custers case it was pretty spectacular but nevertheless, this is the first book that really delves so deeply into the complexity of his character and what his life was like and what his life meant to america. Thank you very much. The interesting thing about writing history and biography, especially for the wellknown event is that you are presented with the fact that people know how it comes out. David lodge who wrote a book with a collection of columns he wrote called the art of fiction distinguishes between mystery and suspense. Suspense is when you dont know whats going to happen next. Mystery is when you know what happens but you dont know how to get there. Youre engrossed in the discovery and the explanation. When you write history, there there is suspense because nobody knows all the events, but theres also mystery. You have to immerse people in the story of the story. So i thought about that as i wrote the custer book because theres a lot of events. The question was, custer, whether little big corn is so famous is because he was the one who was wiped out. There were a lot of other Major Military figures in the west and if they had died at little big horn, i dont think it would be the same. Custer was a cultural icon and both the hero and an icon in his own lifetime. That means he meant something to americans. So what i tried to do was look at that interior story but his life meant things to americans because of what they were going through in a way in which it was very exaggerated and volatile and sometimes selfdestructive way, he was all about the changes in america at that time. So, for example, in the civil war he started to affect that style of the boy generals. The golden hair and he shows up at the age of 23 with the black velveteen uniform with goldmining up from his elbow. He was a very cultivated image. There are two things about that. Want to mention in the book that actually serve the tactical purpose in on the battlefield where people expected the commanders to be in the mix and its actually helpful because they can see where the general is and there was inspired to follow him. Its also something that spoke to americans who are going through the most costly war so far. Theres disillusionment in agony as the generation who thought they were going to win the war with personal aurora x and theyre getting slaughtered in mass infantry warfare. They are dawning by the hundreds of thousands of disease and heres custer who, in that slice of civil war where the cavalrys fighting cavalry at close range is leading charges. He is embodying that romantic ideal that americans went to war with and hes winning. Hes keeping alive something people feel like theyre losing and throughout his life, later later become something that theyre worried that hes standing in the way of which america should be changing, but he always him bodied something thats going on in the country and the way people feel about themselves. Those soldiers who followed him only saw him from behind with the red scarf because he was always right in front. Rate they did not see him leading the retreat. He did not retreat, theres no question about that. Its interesting how we focus so much as a people on the last stand and how custer died. People forget that this young soldier was so instrumental in freeing millions of slaves and their children and their grandchildren forever. It really was and important soldier in the war. That shows both sides of him. I present a very complex picture that theyre definitely not the monochromatic picture that you get for those who want to depict him as an arrogant genocidal maniac. He had real strengths and he had real flaws. Both are why he was famous and notorious. So in the battle, the big surprise for me was a newly he was brave and lucky as he himself knew. I knew he was courageous. Surprisingly, he was a real professional when it came to combat. He was this individualistic guy who was always expecting the rules to be better and i did things like look at his personnel records and see how hes being reprimanded because he would call truces and go hang out with his pals in the confederate army. How later on april were writing about him how hes living up to his reputation. That the army and the rumors would gossip about him passing through the army. You can see it in the official writings about him where hes living up to his reputation of a problem officer. But in combat was the one area where he was a professional. He wrote about how this revolutionary, technological invention that is actually putting an end to the kind of warfare hes grayed out which are the cavalry charges. He wrote this is the most Important Development of the war in terms of arms. He has rifled artillery and he leads charges at moments when they are able to break the enemy line. So the real surprise was that thats the one area where this volatile selfdestructive guy was always professional and in command of himself. He was always confident and he wasnt impulsive. Ironically, because because he died in such a disastrous fashion everybody thinks hes a fool and arrogant in warfare and what not, but thats exactly why he was so, one of the many reasons why he was so good at fighting. People hated him in the army but usually acknowledged he was good at fighting. And of course, your book isnt really focused on the battle, but in your epilogue i think you make it pretty clear that you believe his subordinates let him down at little big horn and the plan mightve worked but of course i wouldnt of had a career. Nevertheless, he really was almost betrayed. Up same time, they were problematic officers. There no question about it. Also, i have to say, we were chatting last night and i mentioned, i really, i really shouldve emphasize this more in terms of that, but i didnt want to get too deep in little big horn. He was the effective field commander. It was his job to maintain those relationships. Thats what he was bad at was managing that. The kind of Institutional Culture of an l realization of society out of the civil war. It was not a cog in the machine. He was never good at being a manager. So if you see that transition, but the engine difficulty starts quickly after the civil war leads up to his death. He did not maintain good relationships. They had a problematic relationship as part of that has got to be the commanders fault. They were problem officers and the testimony is quite remarkable. They came up with four contradictory excuses for why he did not follow orders. He hired as his cook, the escaped slave name eliza brown who was a teenager and she not only became his cook but she took on that role with some Real Authority caret she distributed food to other contraband. She lobbied custer and his wife to teach them about the horrors of slavery. She traded information with officers from other commands. She herself was incredibly formidable formidable figure. Just like his role in management shows custer immersed in the rise of the society and so his personal household reflects the way in which the world is changing as a result of the civil war. Not only have they been freed but africanamericans are asserting themselves. Theyre saying we deserve a place in society, Pay Attention to what we been through. Custer has respect and affection for her and she has a real effect on his views on race and yet he also is an ideological conservative democrat in that struggle, both personal and on the public stage with the way the war has shaped america and the way he, like Many Americans are very hesitant about these changes and even resist it is is key to the book. So all of those public issues are part of the drama of his personal life as well which make such a fantastic subject for a biography. Race is an essential theme of your book and this has made my reading on the grand international internets, some people uncomfortable in this surprises me since he rose to fame in a war that was dedicated to liberating one race and then he wins immortality and dies in a war to subjugate another race. That speaks to me about the complexity of this man. In treating a biographical subject, you have to have sympathy for them as a human being and you should not apologize for them. So the question with custer is, when hes making these choices, first of all, identifying what was important in his own life and not just imposing that, but also recognizing when something speaks to these larger themes as to how america is changing. But also not just condemning him but looking at how he made choices about opportunities and things that were presented to him at the time. This was also a personal choice. When it comes to simply fighting for the union, he sympathizes with the south. He was really from what i call a border state family. He grew up in southern ohio and he was identified with southern culture. He sided with the union. Whatever else was true in american politics, he wanted the country to be whole. Then when it came to the repercussion of his work, he changed and he struggled with it and he struggled with it personally and on a public stage i think at first he opposes it and then he came to believe it was the right thing. Should there be civil rights for africanamericans . Hes dealing with this interesting relationship in his own household as is his wife who is struggling for domestic power with eliza brown and hes also working with reconstruction. He administered part of texas. He had to adjudicate the case of a 9yearold black girl who was murdered because she left her former slave holders to go her mother. So they sent their son and he murdered her. Its a horrible case and custer, being a conservative, being very reluctant as an occupier of american territory, even though he was legally the authority he releases the boy to his Civil Authority and let him go. You see him on a personal and public stage going back and forth and struggling with it. Ultimately, he makes a choice that many other americans made but some of them didnt which is to oppose new rights for africanamericans. He actually becomes controversial for the first time not over the indian wars where there is controversy over him but over the topics of reconstruction. Thats because it tells you something about how americans fought or the way we shaped our values and the constitution over the definition of who is an american. He was immersed in those battles. It was a personal battle as well so just writing about history and saying you should know this, as a writer writer thats not very interesting. Thats the job of historians. As a biographer, i want to use that history to help explain what were the forces driving him. What were the stakes in these personal choices he was making . Then yes, it does tell us that he does tell us something about the country as well. You get to the indian wars and he wrote, he reinvented himself as a figure. He started become of writer and a public individual. In his first articles, when hes writing about himself and the west, he writes very explicitly about American Indians and hes struggling struggling with the fact that hed been out smarted and out argued so he writes frankly about he is facing people who have amazing talents and capabilities and yet he is still having this hierarchical view of race. How do you explain that . So he sort of works his way in his writing two of you where theyre great in nature, their savage, but you cant civilize them. So we have to defeat them and wipe them out. So its interesting to see how he struggled with this. He faces reality and he kind of has to work his way back to his convictions. The thing is true with africanamericans as well. We see a human being, very flawed and real human being with respectful and affection net relationships across those color lines and yet hes also a public player trying to figure out where he stands on this. Its interesting, the fact that in an odd way, his death which comes in the same year of military reconstruction is going to and its almost a unifying effect because if theres one thing white americans in the north and south and africanamericans can all agree on, its that the indians must be defeated. Yes, theres a racial divide there that in a way isnt racial, its almost cultural and has to do with american expansion and the support for custer and the hero building that went on immediately after his death from the southern press. That was so interesting. I gave a talk recently in dallas and theres a terrific book about custer and his reaction it was a great book and it was so interesting how it was in the south where he supervised politically even though he helped beat the confederacy where he had the most support. As you know so well and ive learned from your writing, the people who are most humanitarian toward American Indians also believed that their culture had to be extinguished. As grant said in his first inaugural address, and he really was an idealist, he said any steps that can make the indian a citizen and civilize him, i will support. He didnt want war. He wanted peace policy but he did want to extinguish their economy and independence in traditional rights and cultural separation. So theres the annihilation us and they want to wipe them all out and kill everyone. This is taken seriously as a position. Then custer had the viewpoint of were not going to wipe them all out but will probably all die out. Its not a nice view. That is one side that united even the humanitarians in the north and east. They are saying we have to wipe out their economy and their culture and their language is a religion. Custers defeat ends by calling for peace policy which wasnt much of a peace peace policy since it was the most intense of warfare. Do you see him as an anachronism . Hes trying to make his way in the new age of america in steel and steam . Yes and no. The civil wars giving rise and one of the person who appears repeatedly in my books, because i find him to be a fascinating character is a guy who was with custer at west point but graduated near the top of his class, unlike custer, custer, and when you open these huge ledger books of demerits and whats in the archives, with custer its page after page after page and he ended up with a record number. This fellow has not even a half a page of demerits. He also became a boy general. He was also immersed but he was not a flamboyant figure. He was much more of a train the troops well and lead them professionally. He was in a cultural figure. After the civil war he went to mississippi which is a black majority state. He was the provisional governor and put in the first black officeholders. He was asked to leave the army and join with them. He was someone who chose the other way. After he was driven out and he got involved in the technology and business and with all these changes the way americas was changing, he adapted very quickly and somewhat successfully. I also argue that why jesse james came to rob the bank was because ames was there. These interesting parallel, heres custard custard on the other hand who is a flamboyant character and is opposed to reconstruction policies, who goes west and creates a new image for himself. Yet, he is just a total disaster on wall street, as his wife finds out after he dies and she discovers she has a 9000 debt she didnt know of, back when 9000 was a 9000 was a lot of money. He never quite gets it. A lot of americans are in this position for this is why hes popular. America didnt all become disillusioned because of the civil war. We didnt let go of romanticism there was turmoil and conflict and people were clinging to the romantic antebellum. He speaks to those views. Reconstruction failed because a lot of americans, they wanted to suppress rebellion and they wanted to support africanamericans and having a say so they could keep the confederates from taking power but they werent that committed to the idea of civil rights. Custer reflects a reason why reconstruction ended. Why people in the north ultimately were willing to give it up. Custer is one of those people who resisted it. So when we look back, we see this is the way america was changing and he resisted it and now we have in america with civil rights, but history isnt a straight progression. He reflects in america that was a side of america that was in play. There is a lot of cultural themes in america at the time. He speaks to those people who are uncomfortable with some of the changes that are taking place. Its very much a part of why he was such a hotly debated figure. I grew up watching harold flynn in they died with their boots on. There was a late late show at a time when there were only three channels and a kid had to sneak down and watch that little blackandwhite tv at one in the morning when that movie came on. Of course the custers were portrayed with the storybook romance and thats often been the way historians have portrayed their romance, but alas with all fairytales its not quite true. Their marriage was really a real marriage. Thank you. I was trying to think of the words. People today will recognize themselves in that and recognize being at that age in their 20s and 30s trying to be married and custer was not faithful. She was, she used her gender to both his benefit and her own. Thats right. This is so fascinating. Their relationship was intense. It was very sexual. They have writing to each other that was very intense. Custer is somebody who really needed attention. The thing is, he had real capabilities and his flamboyance played a practical role in his success and it also spoke to the fact that he needed attention. There was something insecure about him. For example in 1866, he went off to new york and his wife was back in merrill michigan taking care of his dying father. He is being treated as a great hero and take into fancy dinners by stockbrokers and democratic kingmakers and finance and women are swarming around him. He is not only very happy to have women swarming around him, he is writing letters to libby telling her about how although women are coming on to him. Its like he needs to raise the value in her eyes. She also loved the attention of men. Occasionally she would put that in his face also there are times when i personally came to the conclusion that one of the reasons why he was courtmartialed or rather why he took the actions that he did that led to his courtmartial was that this is all part of a growing crisis in his marriage. He may have had an affair. He had a dangerous flirtation and he caused a crisis by abandoning his he fixed it by abandoning his men and going back to libby. Theres this letter that was cut up and divided into two different collections. He wrote to libby about how they had had this huge fight and he used a profane word with her and his gambling addiction was a problem. You dont believe me that i can perform. It also speaks to his emotional sensitivity to her. I can tell for a long time youve been mechanical with me. You said the right things but you didnt mean it. Heres a guy who is full of flaws and contradictions and hes needy and yet hes also closely akin to his wife. It shows you why they got over these crises that he keeps creating. The partnership is fascinating because one question that someone is probably waiting to ask, was he planning to run for president in 1876. One reason is no because libby forbade it. During the civil war she had been his political liaison on capitol hill. She knew that the drunk congressmen were fawning all over her and she knew her effect on them. She wrote of one congressman that he was a drunk, but she said i dont mind because i can work with this guy. Then she said to him after words, youre not running for congress. This is a job for professionals. Its a snake bit. She was a real woman of the world. Her relationship with eliza brown and how they were friends and if they struggle with each other, they were real human beings living real lives. Its its interesting. You can read her own memoirs in a way that in previous generations people had been more generous. She didnt want to go there. A lot of it is right off the page where she talks about these tensions. You have to go far between the lines to see her writing about it again. She is a beautiful 34yearold widow in 1876 and six and she devotes the rest of her long life, Franklin Roosevelt is president when she dies. He dreams of going. You think of them as western figures but when he wrote his account, he writes about how theyre going to the snow and theres a blizzard and you cant see father than the width of broadway. He meant broadway new york. Hes identifying himself simultaneously as a man of the cosmetology and a urban sophisticate and also as this man of the world. If you have any questions of for tj, please line up at the microphone and will take those here in the last few minutes. Let me ask you a final question. How do you balance literary technique in keeping the story moving as well as you do with the requirements of the Historical Records and biographical reading . Thats a complicated question. I believe that biography has to succeed as a book. It has to be thought through and fully immersive experience to the reader. My motto is you have to give the reader a reason to read every page. You have to say why do they want to go onto the next page. You have to give them a reason. It might be to find out what happens or to understand what youre saying about someone. You have to keep them tuned into the story. I want to say things about the world and i want to explain things about his life in the context, but it has to be a function mechanism. I want the reader to be invested in the story and to feel like all the actions come convincingly out of who these people are as characters. Its not just random things happening. Its one thing after another. Its about theres a lot at stake. The whole way in hell american is changing is at stake and its also about human lives and personal struggles with personal strengths and flaws and even motivations are not sure of themselves. Its driving everything forward. So my job is not to be a historian and explain what i think about history, its to write a full full and complete book that gives you that satisfying experience of that when you put it down you feel like youve almost lived his life and hes an accomplished human being. Whether you like them or hate him, its just compelling story all around. Well, you you succeeded, no question about it. Yes her. Thank you. I want to ask you a question about the jesse james book, but it continues on to the present of what were talking about in the future. My question is, the center of the thesis of the jesse james book are about the battle and capture the last battle of the civil war. I was wondering if youd care to speculate whether actually the last battle of the civil war took place the other night in chicago. Im being facetious here, but not really because i guess i wondered if you saw a thread going through both of your books and onto the future of post civil war america. Thank you. Yes, the civil war is really a moment when we start grappling with questions that are really central to what america is all about. Tend to our greatest achievements, weve had amazing achievements as a country country. They tend to come out of not just we are these great people and americas wonderful, its when weve had great strugglesor over some of the worst aspects of American History that america was the largest slaveowningis nation on earth and whatth happened as we have this huge war which revolved around the issue of slavery and led to the abolition of slavery and a few years in non racial definition of citizenship in whichears africanamericans are voting and sitting on congress within a few years after chief justice hadre ruled that they are not fullyto human, basically, that they have no rights in the white man is entitled. A few years later you have black senators and congressmen. Thats amazing. Its not just the straightforward line of progress. So these issues, the way things change in the definition of whos an american per the role of the federal government which goes through a dramatic change and even though theres a retreat, the government plays a larger role ever after in American History. Bout so we argue about immigration and people are very that upset about muslims in the United States. These are not exactly the same thing. You cant say that people who joined the ku klux klan and murdered women and children in the homes because of race so anybody who goes to donald trump rallies its the same thing. Of course its not the same thing but a society and stress over the threats to how people perceive them to who is an american versus people who say the whole point of americas about an idea. Its about universal humanity. These are issues that in jesse james is life and custers life are right at the center of their lives. So im not going to sit here, i have political views, but im not here is a political pundit. I do think these issues though theyre not exactly the same, im not going to condemn one group of american and praise others for their political views, but certainly those tensions still play out, always in a different way, but those tensions and struggles go right back to the civil war era. I would imagine that 3000 references might be a little little intimidating in doing your resorts, research, but i was wondering if you were a modern biographer looking forward, whether you would and t the or be relieved at the plethora of information out there that you would have to try and assimilate with all the videos and facebook postings and articles that are out there. Im just trying to imagine how you could imagine getting your hands wrapped around modern history with all thatw information available, just tons and tons of it. How you might sift through that to get some perspective and be able to offer something unique that analyzes that type of the situation. With custard i have much theu custer i had much more of the traditional, its always a man his the drunk. He says whats hes doing and hes on his hands and knees on the front porch. He said i dropped my keys. Theyre obviously not here. Where did you drop them. Over by the car. The lights better here. Th thats where he was looking. So hes often drawn to subjectsi that have a big pile of papers and a neat collection. With custer i got a little bit more of that. Theyre so much more of his letters and i got to dig into big piles of letters which was just wonderful. With vanderbilt i had a little bit of a taste of the modern world. I found out why no one had written a big biography because no one hated themselves enough to do it. During its not because theres no big collection of papers, but theres tons of stuff out there scattered all around. So so now that theyre starting to digitize newspapers, during his very long life i searched for every reference and i found out just how many pieces ofa property they had in brooklyn for sale and what a career judgi John Vanderbilt of albany had. For the future, usually peoplewi worry about all the Digital Media and having strands of nothing to work with, in fact people say its the opposite going to be very hard to sort through. I dont know. Its what modern historians will do. You have to find ways to narrow the search. Doing Something Like they do a vanderbilt to search for everything is going to be impossible. Or so with custer, i had to learn and yes custard. There are actual references to general custard. Even as you know they would write about him as the usda are and spellings were off and they would be totally in flex at the time. In i cant tell you how much i appreciate that within the one answer you described my chosen profession as being full of drunks and engaging in self loathing. Session thats pretty correct actually. Yes sir. Good afternoon. You spoke earlier in the session about how even though custer was not wellliked he was well respected as a fighter. What occurred and how large were they back at the War Department after his demise . And with that regard for him being such a fighter and being massacred at little big horn, how did the War Department of the president change to fighting in the west and westward expansion . Thats an interesting question. The thing with custard is thatte he was, he was wellliked by a lot of people actually. One of of the difficult things is after the civil war, immediately after the civil war, he starts to do things that create messes for himself. This is part of the whole point of writing about him, i like to compare him to walter and breaking bad. Sometimes you like him and other times you realize he does horrible things but hes always creating one disaster afterr another that he has to get out of and thats very much custers life more so after the civil war. A lot lot of people loved him. So when he got himself deeper and deeper in the hole and became more and more morally ambiguous with issues of race, the struggle as a writer is to. Keep for the reader why he was charismatic why people actually liked him. Some people hated him personally, but some people always loved him. So that dual nature that he had is very hard to keep in mind. There have been old books written about the aftermath of edttle big horn. I just want to say that there was a real scramble to try to label him. A lot of the image of him is being reckless started immediately after this war