He was a great friend, the suezfriend of canal. That time spirit of that we would they would move on to panama and join the specific to the atlantic as the in any otherd done part of the world. Futures the wave of the and that they would simply repeat their success in this very different part of the world forgetting that panama was a vastly differenter the rare, typography,rent climate, everything. They were mistaken about knowing territory, as it were. Today frk you go to panama, see a lot of him, at thes a bust authority. Until a couple of years ago, was a steakhouse in downtown. Saw would he think if he the video that we just showed of the canal today . Hist would probably break heart because he was an extraordinary man. The loomingf figures beyond anyone else of his time. He was something of a rain maker. An engineer, he was a believer in a great the capacity of human beings to the untried and difficult. By his ownt up. Hetoric he had tremendous backing invested inne who the suez canal had done very well. The selling of the stock of the Panama Canal Company was a big venture, it was exciting. Stock speculation of today with the wonders of technology. Problem, the french problem when they came to canal is they were ahead of science and technology. Science and medicine had not yellowd the problem of fever and m malaria. Was a death trap. The equipment to be used had not sufficiently. It was an undertaking that was of privatereach capitalization. Treasury of a great nation behind it to guarantee success. Further more and i think probably as important as else, ten gi the engineers brave and admirable men had they learnedwhere to do things by the book. There were certain prescribed ways to solve problems. Of improvization, which is so ingrained in American Life particularly in 19th century technology. You tryhat works and things until you find something that works. When that work, you go with it. They didnt know how to do that. They never resolved the problem what you do with all of that water in panama. How do you get around this torrential river that can rise 30, 40 feet in less than 48 hours. Rainfall is heavy on the as almost anyone in the world. Rainfall not measured in inches feet. They sort of thought we will find a way. Technology, engineering will and they never figured it out. Extraordinary irony that it in 1789, aa meeting stood up at ar meeting of society of geography the west bank in paris. He said if you proceed with this of digging a sea level at panama, you will fail. You will fail because your workers will die by the disease and you cant dig a sealevel canal terrain. Hat it wont work. The way to do it is lift the of locksby a series and let the ships pass through in ahrough a trench but real way a bridge of water. Proposed thes, he exact kind of canal that he was describing a few minutes ago. A canal that is quite miraculous. And mirror rac they left him out of the room. Panama toench came to dig a sea thislevel canal and everything he predicted happened. The company went bankrupt. A very sad and sorry business. Antistem nism in france. Of those involved in the wasany were jewish and it seen by some in france as a hadsh plot because they been claiming progress in panama happened. Ot, in fact, so the company failed. Financial biggest collapse until then. It rocked the government of france. The government fell. This brave effort sat turning jungle, so to speak with equipment lying everywhere. To it . S going to happen with that im going to get invite our viewers to talk to you. The east andn central time zone and if you live in the mountain or pacific time zone there is a separate number. We have set aside a speive phone spentor those who have time and lived in the panama zone. Time, did thein Americans First start taking interest in that . We were very interested all along. Railroad across the panama at the time of the rush that setd the path. It showed this was the place to build the canal. The french was right. Can nickin nicaragua was a. Place to do itu our interest took hold at the alternative of the century. Surveys andinds of tried to determine the best route. Our determination was in part inspired by military necessity. We wanted a way to move our navy and forth between the two oceans. Had the sameourse, isle idealistic aspirations. Do you think it would have happened without Teddy Roosevelt . Would havethink it been as popular and patriotic country. E for the Theodore Roosevelt put his stamp put his the canal as he stamp all over everything. Thefirst president to leaf country while in office and had himself photographed down there controls of the 95ton steam shovel. Suit. E a white linen it is really the perfect picture era, confident, power, and constructive. He thought, Theodore Roosevelt the panama a that was going to be the greatest of hisment administration. He was proud of it. It as well as by he should have been and the country should have been. And heroic under taking. Beenng of this had ever taken before. Stevens . John john stevens was the brilliant american engineer builder. He plotted the path of the great who came in,road in the early stages of the several things of immense importance. It would be feudal to built a canal and he saw nothing the diseasee until problem was solved. Cleaned up toas an extent where they could fever and getow rid of most of malaria. A major event in the history of the world because it tropicalf that countries could be relieved of diseases. We will talk about how he did that later. Well take phone calls for you. Thank you for taking my call. Having just returned from panama last month and im soon to be to a Panamanian National. Whatld like to ask him on he would like to reflect on, if the canal would would have happened to that part itcentral america and how would have altered history . It was evidently that we would build a canal it was just the question of when. In mind howkeep much economics were involved. Through panama would save 8,000 miles on a voyage york to san francisco. 8,000 miles is a long way. It has all kinds of impacts on andrance rates, labor costs the rest. While the cost of the canal was beyond anything anyone had imagined at that point. What itinor com fired would compared to what it mean in the nation of the world. Before the first world war, it been built soon after. We were the only country build itto economically and in terms of our ofacity to mount that kind an effort of labor and ma shinry machinery and the rest. Biggest concrete structure in the world. Doug from kerrville, texas. How do you do . Worked 32 years for the panama canal and born and raised the zone in 1936 and born there and went all through school. I assisted you when you were there, however, i was behind the scenes. I worked for the marine director and many of the scenes within forth. Ks and so some of the items that you had investigate, i was behind the scenes. I do wish you well. You. Ll, thank it is great to hear from you. Thank you for what you did during those years. You wrote the book how many years ago . Was published in 1977. Is itre can people Still Available . Print, im glad to say. It has been reissued in a new paperback edition. Any idea how many books it sold . I dont know. Had a documentary about it, is that what the caller was talking about . We had a series on pbs a number of years ago. Has becomee interested in the panama canal interest. Lose that i think the veteran, if you of panama, the people who worked for the canal or those it never, building ever forget it. They love to talk about it and back. O go panama is a wonderful country. It is beautiful. Are terrific. It is fascinating. Them zone still call yans . I think that is dying out, i would imagine. Zone is no longer part of the american presence there. Youre next. Mr. Mccullough. I had a question i wanted to ask on the canal. Theyou familiar with treaties that transferred the canal over at the end of the month . Yes, i certainly am. They the reservation that have, do you know where that is the treaties to transfer this . That gives us the right to use intervention if we had to do it to defend the security canal . Yes, that is part of the treaties. An important part of the treaties, which was passed by in 1978. E one of the gentleman who wrote that treaty is going to be us later this evening and im sure he can answer for of your questions there. Who were the people who built canal . Where were they from . This is something that i widerdeserves understanding. People from every part of the the panama canal point of another if you consider the french and american times. Most of the labor came from the indies. Most of the people, men and jamaica. E from in the years where the American Engineers are in charge of the most of the workers came from barbados. Englishspeaking people. They came by the thousands. Now, there were countless other people, too, in addition to the force from the west indies and both in the labor force and or themanagement force. Ring road work, the front lines the infantry, if you will, were black men from barbados and jamaica. Forget how many people died buildin building th. Died . Many no one will be able to calculate exactly but a minimum 25,000 people died building canal. Ama about 20,000 died during the french period. About it,ady talked there was no understanding of malaria. Ver and ma most people died from yellow malaria. The ma people died there and primarily from disease again but largely from pneumonia. Andly from accidents and the great excavation that went on lasted for seven years. Years, it was never silent. The work went on night and day. Men working in that night and day. Of thend, the roar forth of, the back and trains and steam shuttles, the working wasle phenomenal. It cost 10 million. Likedoes not sound much today but that was a fortune then. Sevenllion to take that miles. Mile or 1 million a more. To see its staggering those old photographs. When you go through a that filledof course, it is with water. It. Re only seeing part of but the phenomenal canal arement of the the locks. As he was saying are and imaginative and fascinating nap great canal takes a ship, lifts about 80 feet above sea the lake,ds it across sets the ship back down using nothing but the force of gravity, using nothing but the water, this water that the could. Figure out what to do with picture the genius of the a that is that it took the problem of the canal, torrential water flow and turned it into the solution. Lesson thatilliant very often in life and the the solutionf is of the problem. Wouldct that this water continually renew itself that it can expel millions of gallons of water for every ship that goes through. It uses no pumps, no power at all. Nature, it is working with nature not against, which is the greatest form of engineering. The scale is really breathtaking. These ships are as big as onost as tall if they stood end almost as tall as the empire state building. If you took one and stood it on end and there are 12 of these lock, put it on the new york skyline, it would be one of the york. Ilding in new the monumental undertaking of concrete, dealing geologyery unstable that gave rise to horrendous into the coming down channel. Conceivable every problem imagined. One of the most difficult snakes, disease, endless water, 2,000 miles from supply, this is the first time that the United States marshaled a great overseas effort. 20th at the start of the century. Important and interesting, too. For everyson died 10 feet of the panama canal. Caller. Im calling from richmond, virginia. Youre on the air. Ahead. Caller, youre on the air, go ahead. Mr. Mccullough. Yes . They question is what is reason for what did it take pass a treaty for the canal . Well, there were many reasons why people were opposed to the treaties. That this effort had been financed by the United States, american money, american leadership, american engineering, american equipment, Political Leadership had built it. It belonged to us. Had paid more for the panama canal than we paid for alaska, andsiana purchase, california, all that we purchased in the enlargement of country geographically cost less than what we paid for the canal. So therefore, why should we give , particularly as it has military importance. Carter think the administration realized when aboutot into this fight the treaties that the firestorm they were going to face. Opposition was terrific, as you remember. Thiser, please understand wasnt some notion dreamed up in carter. Of president the realization of new treaty, new arrangement in panama was more in tune with the 20th goes back to the eisenhower administration. It was bound to happen. The mosted af mirror rabble and encouraging the treatiesnce was passed in the 1970s, both agreements and it has been a smooth and good partnership. Next. Th carolina, youre mr. Mccullough, my name is frank. I would like to make a few about the canal. Caller, im going to have to ask you to turn down your television set. Were getting a lot of feedback. Ahead. In represent to the operation the gate, i dont believe you have made it clear as how 25horsepower motor can use those massive gates. Those gates are 7 feet thick and course, two of them are more form110 feet because they a shallow v. To lock them when them. Is water behind those gates and you can stand there watch them open the gates you wont realize this unless youre familiar with rooms. The gates are floated up and resunk after they get in place. All the weight is moved by floating expect a few hundred pounds that is why a 25 motor moves them open and close. Sill, theyet on the are reflooded and sunk so they water. Ld mr. Mccullough . That is absolutely right. Miracles,e of the creation. Cgenius of this great the gates are hollow like an airplane wing. Float. Water is supporting the gates the as taking most of weight of the gate just as water is lifting the ships up all feet through the force of gravity. As was stated earlier, i dont think it can be stressed too much. Insulation,same those are the same gates, same mechanism within the walls of the locks that were built in 1912, 1913 to be ready when the canal opened in 1914. Was sur peshly built. Less than wasting estimated and on time and despite the fact that they encountered one problem after had reckonednobody on. There was an earlier treaty we havent talked about. What is that . Treaty was signed in secretary of the state. Are two 19th century characters who are doing of thes at the start 20th century. A frenchmen who worked on thecanal at the time of french effort and he became an promoter and detail maker who signed a treaty a representative for panama. Us treaty is one that gave our legal right to build the in this 10mile wide panama zone, in which the United States, according to the act as if was to sovereign. Not exactly sovereign but as if sovereign. What year is that . 1904. Done very was quickly. In fact, so quickly that the onresentatives who were their way to washington arrived too late and the deal was all signed and delivered. This was very much a slap in the them. O it remained a bone in the throat panamanians ever since and understandably. Our political engineering was nowhere near the way the and it was aas shame. We were in a hurry. Time. A different we had a president in office who was eager to get things done. He later said in a show off fashion, i took the canal. Took panama and let Congress Debate it afterwards where i ahead and built it. Arrogant. Uite way, it caused longrange regrettable. Are is important to understand insults were perceived howeople in panama and people were long lasting hurt was from that. Happened one year after panama got their independence columbia . This happened right away. Columbiaendence from was a different story because it was to what extent was this a resolution and what engineered by a lawyer from new york and from roosevelt administration. Was part of columbia. Most valuableits province because the prediction was the canal would be built there eventually and this was to jewel. It was to be the goose that lay egg. Olden this sliver was broken off from was becauseause it we wanted a better agreement yans than wemain thought we could get with the columbians. York. Atoga springs, new hello. Hello, mr. Mccullough. I enjoy your scholarship. Fromed in the canal zone 1972. I was really impressed with the canalchnologies that the zone demonstrated. One was concrete and the other was electricity, which the companyelectric pioneered in that area. Yes. Was also a member of the United States army and observed colonyism that existed in the zone. Where were you based, caller . Lived in fort clayton. That was just turned over last week. Right. It was easy to notice that all people that lived in the canal zone were u. S. They were employed government. They were employed be the canal services. I was there during vietnam and of militaryit a bit activity at the time. Everyone there was required to i. D. Cards, anyone who wanted to buy food was in the needed to showism d. Cards. I mention this specifically of people whole meet in a store minorere purchasing aings, deor door rant and magazine, i recall. They did not have u. S. I. D. Obviouslythey were, u. S. Citizens and were members of the peace corp. They were not allowed to buy these items in a panama canal zone store because they did not have the i. D. Cards. Thanks. R, we were showing our viewers what fort clayton looks like in october. If you go to the forts it looks like a ghost town. Imagine. The caller just brought up important points. Cation of electroany the forts, all of the valves and inside the locks. The locks are like watches inside. Of thingsll kinds going on there. It is all run by electricity. Conceived and built before factories in america were electrified. This is pioneering work and it is still there. Should. Exactly as it didnt keep our life in the zone in harmony very well with the with theworld and panama. To life in panamanian could not buy anything in a store in the canal zone. More to choose from, the prices were lower. Was accused of long doing or breaking the law his ownanal zone in really, he would be tried in American Court in the english language. He could notat understand. It was just made for trouble. The 1904as because of treaty . This is because of the way of life that set in there. The canal zone expect employees of the canal. There to dodown research on my book, i have a number of children. If weght it would be fine could stay there for several the children could go to an American School without much of a disruption of a their life back home. No, i couldnt live there employed by the panama canal. It was a government town. Ironically, it was socialism in model form. Was marvelous, wonderful. Interestingte, work, important work, work to be schools, good services, fire department, postal system, handsome environment all around you, buildings and palm trees. Beautiful. Heres a map where you can see better where were talking here. You have panama here and panama here and right down the middle the canal zone and in the middle of, that you see the actual panama canal. Have two ports. One is balboa port, which is on the pacific side, is that correct . Mr. Mccullough. Then you have the other area, which is the other way in which atlantic side. Yes. We had ports on both side. Yes. Had bases on both sides that have reverted back to the panamanians. Next is pittsburgh, pennsylvania. Hello. How were black workers treated in the building of the canal and were they treated the the others . In i can add to that, are families there today that are descend events of the workers . Yes, there are. Stillorkers are the jamaicanf workers who are there and are fluent in english and read english. All that goes on there is very important. You have to know what youre doing and you have to communicate exactly what is happening. There would be a moments along these enormous ships going back and forth. It is particular because the so huge in relation to locks. E of the the black work theirs came to panama were not treated equally white workers. They did not live in quarters near ase anywhere adequate. Or qua less. Ere paid you know, their work was infinitely more dangerous. Some lived in squaller. This doesnt justify differential but they were getting paid more than they ever had in their lives. Problem ofever a trying to get people who wanted to work there. I know this because i have interviewed many of the people who worked in the cut. Alive 20ple who were they were pride accomplished. There were pride in themselves apart of this a part great work. Youre next. Hello, my ulysses s. Grant is im a retiredand colonel. To you the pass on tremendous delight that my and i enjoyed from your book in the dark and in the jungle i would read passages from your book to them. Liked wasthey most evidence of leadership and these wonderful lieutenant who led 20odd marines. Believe they were looking for lowest point and trying to find a path they had heard of. Leadership got them through. I wanted to pass it to you the we had fromelight many of the passages from your book that were like that. Cant tell you how much that means to me. Thank you, sir, very much. California, youre next. Thank you cspan for having and mr. Mccullough for being there for us tonight. Know let you know that ive seen the pbs many times. I watch every time it is on. You did mention in the documentary that the canal, at one time, was proposed to go nicaragua. I would like to know if you that. Elaborate more on it is hard to find information on that. I understand there was a stamp commemorated on that. Actually, mr. Mccullough we have that stamp that we can show our viewers. Nicaragua canal was very popular with the people in the would haveause it been a shorter road from new orleans to nicaragua than to panama. Leans if one keeps in mind of the geography of central america. Central america swings way over to the east. People think panama canal is below mexico. Of new orleans could go through Nicaragua Canal in a less distancend than going through panama. Also, it was believed as if or lessre little disease in nicaragua than panama. Nicaragua wereof somehow more receptive to there. G the canal it would have been a longer and more complicated canal. Route. Not the best panama was the best route. Reason that it had less mee mosquitoe bites disease and the carries it to a mailman, if you will. More people around who has the disease, the more the disease spreads. The fight in the senate was intens because there were a great many people for political whatns and for reasons for they thought was good sense that the were determined that canal would be built in panama. Frenchmen who we saw the treaty signed put on a Great Campaign that man panama was the only place to go. Frenchtrying to sell the works and trying to bail out the old French Company for the equipment, for which we paid 40 million. You who gorgisk was . Well, if i can finish, his were volcanoes in nicaragua. Is noposition said there in nicaragua statute. Ng he made sure that every senator thatved one of the stamps there were volcanos in nicaragua. And there was the stamp. About mr. Gorgis. He worked on the eradication war. Llow fever after the he contracted yellow fever. If you contract it and survive you are immune for the rest of your life. Had yellow fever so they could go to panama. He knew all they had to do was rid of the yellow fever mosquito was to get rid of standing water. A creature quite different mosquitoes that it freshnly lay its eggs in water held in artificial containers. Of thed to get rid standing water. Water standing in open systems, in tin cans,g in anng fresh water held artificial container. Malaria byreduce reducing standing water of any lowlyingamps or marsh land wherever the ma lair mow zee yo, which is a different creature, would also breed. Major breakthrough in medical history. Illness soisease, often affects history, far more historians or most of us appreciate. Yan who was in that area has probably been to the gorgis hospital, which is the name of the hospital that takes of people or i should say took care of people. Now. Closed campaignavy mosquitoe was costly and a big campaign. Sent down by roosevelt and he would figure out what this antimosquitoe project was costing. In. Alled dr. Gorgis he said i computed this mow zee costing 10 for every mosquito. To burden awful thing the american taxpayers, the with. An government the doctor says yes, but what if the 10 mosquitoes got you and what a loss that would be to the government so the campaign continued. Then the aftermath, fumigation gang was sent out to clean . D they cleaned up everything. Sewage and just normal practices that we take for granted today, to beard to be brought on the whole community there. Mind, we build whole tons, hospitals, schools, house all the people that came from there elsewhere in the world. Ed hundreds of times or 1,000 times. Let in, water was to be when the canal was to be filled, and they struck the sets. They took it away. Sailing across the lake in a cruise ship, lets say. Sailing over where once down below under the water there were communities with dances on that. Ay night and all of miami, florida, you are next. Go ahead. Evening. Im in active duty in the marine corps and i spent months in in fortnd i was living clayton. I read the book while i was and i enjoyed it very much. It is in his book a the marines after thethe captain declaring of the independence of panama to help keep the peace after the u. S. Army pulled out summer. A this they sent a small group of marines down and i was one of of basebe a final round closes. It was a full circle kind of thing, marines were the first ones to arrive and the last ones leave. Richfield, you are next. Commend you on your interview. Instructive. I have a couple of questions. The canal and my dr. Carlosng is that jay finley was the person to the yellow fever that caused so much trouble at the canal. A monument there that they have for him. Also, i would like you to that panamaossible has to have an army to protect the canal in order for us to them. T over to panama, invasion of panama no longer has an army to it. Nd on the first point, dr. Finley was the one who did work on yellow fever in havana. A statue inves panama or anywhere else in the world. L the protection of the pan ofaal, military protection the panama canal as stipulated in the treaties is the responsibility of the United States. That wasthe clause brought up by an earlier caller. Important part of the treaty. Bethe panama canal were to in jeopardy from an outside statest is the united right and responsibility to step in. Your book ends where . In 1914 with the opening of the canal. Betweene meantime, 1914, were going to take our to 1964. Up how did the treaty, that we have the earlier about, treaty set up this relationship between the United States and led to the unrest that begin or started to culminate in the 1960s . It was aaid before, bone in the throat. It was more than a burr under saddle. Imagine a strip offer the o tery 10miles wide cutting through the center of your country. Every time you want to go from of your country to the other, you have to go through mans land of american sovereignty, quasi sovereignty. Are a panamanian you resent that. I remember he described as a little boy being on a bus and how the bus was stopped and policemen came onboard the bus and it scared him. They were somehow his mother was threatened and he that. Like nobody would like that. And our flag flying and all of the rest. Keep in mind, there was much we that was very good for panama. Brought uptself, was our program is fresh water. It is the finest source of fresh in latinsuppose america. Marvelous an endless water. Of fresh anrican personnel were addition to the economy of panama. Panama shared in the revenue as well as the prestige of the canal. There was the feeling that some day this has got to be different. Riot was touched off in the raising of4 over the a flag at a high school in the canal zone. It got rough. It got out of hand. Riots gotst seen how out of hand in seattle. Wakeup call for people in washington, long overdue that done. Ing had to be that is where were going to move next. Towill say good night mr. Mccullough. Winner of the pull alexander prize on his book on truman. You are working on what now, sir . A book about john and abigail adams. When are we going to see that . So. Aybe in another year or coming up next, were going panamanian who was a negotiator in 1977 and went on president of panama. Do you remember the first time that someone approached you asked you or started talking to you about being involved in a that would be the panama canal treaty . Yes, i remember. Was told me that the of the United States there would be a new time for negotiations and two negotiators have been appointed by president carter. Told me their names and we prepared the first meeting with march of 1977 in the washington. Anama in what were your emotions at that time . Andell, the house was empty very cold. That a man of some age, he never took his coat. He remained the whole time with his coat on because it was a cold morning. It was a little tough because we after 30 yearsa of negations. As you can see in the verygraphs here, we have difficult incidents with the 1964 and the in days after. President lyndon johnson, we assume the with panama with some scopes. After 13 years those scopes had not reached any success. A little scared that have any new treaty. We approached the negotiators of the United States that they believe really want to do justice for in that moment, not in that time. Take a step back from that. The negotiators was saul, correct . Yes. He wrote about this period. He said forhe said, arrangement by and under the earlier treaty, treaty was a source of do youo the panamanians, agree . The earlier treaty. Yes, it was a source of shame. I think also it was a shame for the United States for the remember thatse i treatydiscussions of the in the senate of the United States of the congress. Rejected the treaty and they say it was a treaty too good for the United States. Probably that the panamanians treaty and het was right. Also that mr. Taft of was also the president the United States Supreme Court and then president of the United States. That was very treaty. D about that treaty so, maybe that favorable to the United States the kind of treaty it would be rejected by the United States. That was really a treaty was a shame for both countries. Treatiesen signed the 1903, two hours before the panamanian delegation arrived in washington. Something like a panamanians to know that this man signed a treaty kind of advice. You were born when . Me . I was born in 1940. Do you remember growing up your reaction was to the fact that the americans had this strip through the middle of panama that they could do anything they wanted to . When i have explained the felt to thet i europeans they dont believe. That in the car to usee panamanians have two plates. Want. Ate the panamanians they car to travel through pa ma zone, that means in order to cross the canal to go to the country, they have twose two licenses, drivers license. One panamanian and one the american. Very well, i had a died and he worked for a canal company. He was very white man with green eyes and brown hair. I. D. For whitehe people. He went with a lot of people who becauseith whites only he was panamanian. That luckily is over. So those were the emotions you brought with you when you walked into the negotiations 1970s . There are many more. Lawyer. You go alone in zone, you were charged with an american judge an appeal that appeal goes to louisiana. Because in the united so it is has codes more or less similar to the panamanian laws. Have to go to the united appeal. O obtain an so when you walked into the negotiating room, those first was the one thing that you knew you wanted to walk with . Well, let me tell you very frankly something. In thatot believe moment that we were we were presented with a lot of advantages. Atreally did not think december 30 1, 1999, the canal. Ould still not be panamanian we began to understand after some meetings, after some , of course we want that, but we were not sure we could obtain. When the negotiators told us they really wanted to do justice to panama, in that moment, when he was ahat phrase, member. Did the americans make any mistakes in the negotiations . Sometimes, we experienced difficulty in the capital. It was very difficult to understand in the capital. When you watched the debate, when you watched that Senate Ratification debate or you probably did not watch it. You probably just heard about it. What was that like . We were watching the process, vote, so wey one were very concerned. But after the ratification, we went to a tv channel in panama and announced to the nation that it had been ratified by the United States. From the balcony, it was the operation was not necessary. I dont remember the name, but a second strategy. To toss someoposal kind of disposal into the area of the canal, and he would use some soldiers to do that, but it was really secret. Only that night the secret was revealed. With this treaty have the general . Ut that would be very difficult. Man to probe what was the previous bilateral relationship with the United States and panama. He visited by himself. Germany, the united kingdom. He visited trying to obtain support. Of 77 and the group , andresident of venezuela these 4 nations venezuela, colombia, costa rica, panama. Hey made a lot of support when we talk about the panama canal treaty, we think about panama, but as you were saying, at the time, this was really a much broader issue than that for the leaders of the country and some of the south americans. Yes, and you know why . We all wanted to consider that the canal was not a panamanian thing. We will rule the canal, but panamanians think the canal leads to the world, and we thought that we had justice on so lets say the great the support from south america and the rest of the world. Would you have done it sooner if you could have . Before december . 1977 1977 and the 1978 for the ratification, but years before there was turnover. It was a long time. Let me tell you more. The negotiators that, so we had some luck, but i think this time has been very helpful for panamanians. These years have been a lifetime for us. Im looking at the young man. How old were you then . I was 37 years old at the time. Would you have ended up being president of this country for four years if you had not been involved in those negotiations . Maybe that helped a little but besides being i had been in charge of a lot of the students, the. Shirts, the posters i was a very wellknown person in the government. The treaties themselves why did they divide it . Whose idea was that . I would say there were different generations. That we hadmember and then inthing 1967, the work rejected by the government. Most of the matters of legal terms was a matter of political issues. We wanted the school to become panamanian. We considered that a canal should be panamanian. Jeopardize the relationship with the United States of america. I hope that the that would be so panama andss, the United States, that the transit will remain well and the canal will remain open forever. Economically, did panama get what it needed to get to move step . Is next there will not be any annual money coming from the united , but that will depend totally on us. The Economic Team makes a at the for a large sum, conference, for all the stages. Hey made was a lotic issue with the United States because we want to give the american negotiators and president carter the idea that we have much more important issues to pursue and to plan for. When americans construct the the United States is a country, a nation very , theyned about money built up the canal as a business. ,e have a great responsibility and we have to invest a lot of money in the development of the canal. The part of the treaty in which america, the United States, can come back into this country if the canal is ever in jeopardy do you regret negotiating that . No, when we signed the the public example said that we told our country that we something. Hat is a canal that suffered from any other country, we hope we would never have that. The United States has the right and the responsibility to defend the canal because we have no army. Even if we should have an army, that army would not be capable to protect the canal. Final question could the treaty have happened without jimmy carter . Of course not. Of course not. His jimmy carter would not become president of the United States, we still would be named making negotiations and talking with america. This man was Something Like a prisoner, and when he arrived, himself, he promised panama that he would do justice, and he accomplished at. Thank you. If you have just joined us, we are talking about the panama canal. In our next segment, we are going to look at the panama canal treaty. Let me ask you first the same at then i asked mr. Royo end could these treaties have happened without resident jimmy carter . I got started in 1971 with president nixon, and the negotiation had started even earlier under president johnson, and i continued on through president fords administration and president carters administration. In one sense, they had bipartisan support in this country. The other hand, it was president carter who put the effort in and got it done. My guess is that treaties would have happened at some point. It was a historical inevitability, but president carter deserves a lot of credit for taking the bull by the horns and bringing the thing to closure. What were the circumstances in 1971 that got you to be involved in writing the treaty . I was just out of law school, went to work for the state department. I did not get any choices. I got latin american affairs, and my boss had broken his knee playing tennis that we can, so they said someone had to go cover the negotiations. I wass later, scheduled that, but as a result, i got involved at that time and ended up becoming the veteran on the u. S. Side. They change negotiator several times, but i hung around for the duration. Quit what was the key part, the key time period of the negotiation . It is hard to put an exact fix on that because when you look back at the treaties now, portions of them were negotiated over the entire 13, 14year royo was just. Talking about. The crucial period was the last six months or so during the Carter Administration when the real push was brought on to bring it to closure. An awful lot of the work was done both internally in the u. S. Government and then visavis the panamanians over the space i would say probably, most seriously, from 1973 on. In the latter part of 1973, we resumed negotiations. We had a round i was initially involved in in 1971. Fernando offer it up, later the chief administrator of the canal, was the youngest guy on their site at the time, so the two of us got the job of writing text. Starting in 1973, there was a big push put on the nixon administration. He negotiated a set of principles to govern the negotiation, which secretary kissinger then went to panama , and that really gave a new impetus to the negotiation. Then by 1977, we had a fairly clear idea of what it was going to take on both sides to make a treaty, but it was not clear that the willpower was there to bite the bullet and make the deal, and that is, i think, where president carter came in. The two of them made one heck of a team. Ofassador really put a lot poison to moving both sides to say stop debating this, make a decision, come up with formulas, and we were able to bring that to fruition, but it was really a cumulative effort. Where we are negotiating . During the rounds that bart is to fruition, we spent a lot of time in the mid1970s and a Little Island across the coast of panama and found that convenient at the time because it got negotiators away from their bureaucracies long enough when you were in capital, you tended to always be getting phone calls about some other matter, and people were not focused on trying to think through how we could do this. The last fewing months, most of the negotiation was actually done in the state department building, and that point,ause at that moving the bureaucracy was probably more important. We kind of knew where we wanted to go. It was how to get us from here to there, so being close and being engaged was important. The last round we did was in panama. Who would be in the room during the negotiations . On both sides, we had our chief negotiators during our early parts. When i first started, it was ambassador robert anderson. Ambassador bunker, as i mentioned, came on in 1973. Occasionally, they would meet by themselves with a panamanian negotiators, but most of the time, they had their deputies we had the panama country director. We had general dalton, the secretary of defense, whose representative and deputy negotiator, myself would you sit around the table and chat, or was it much more the panamanians had an equivalent you know, personalities change from time to time, although there was a fair amount of stability. We would sit on both sides of the table like you can envision in the negotiation, but you had a lot of conversations off on the side, too. That was one of the advantages of going out to the island. You would finish out the formal session, and then you could go sit down somewhere and have a that, iffee and say know your guidance is soandso, but what do you think about this . We were able to make a lot of progress that way if we just up to the official positions, as you can see from the panamanian commentary. It was such an emotional issue on their side that they had developed this sort of theology over the years about how everything had to be right and just. Very hard to negotiate with somebody who is operating under that kind of guidance. We were able to develop and ambassador bunker was very strong on this he said we had to get these guys talking reality here. And we would try to get them off to the side and say, look, lets put aside our formal guidance for a moment. What if we were able to do this . What would you be able to do . And explore it without having to go back and get politicians on both sides to agree to something before you could tell whether it was going to be productive or not. It is not something unique to this negotiation. That is the way you negotiate, but it was particularly important for cicely because there was so much emotion involved in the issue. Was the language a difficulty . Not especially. A lot of americans spoke spanish, and a lot of panamanians spoke english, and we had good interpreters. When youre doing negotiations, always bring interpreters so you are speaking your own language, but usually a mixture of both languages. People talk about the panama canal treaty. Is it one treaty . There is one of the panama canal treaty, and a second one concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the panama canal. Both signed at the same time . I will give you a little background as to why that came about. You heard from David Mccullough some of the background with the theeaty, which was basic terms of that treaty you have to understand it to understand what we did later on it was negotiated by frenchman. It granted the United States virtually total jurisdiction, powers, and authority. Defined geographically jurisdiction. Anything that went on there was under our jurisdiction. We could marry and divorce panamanians, give them traffic tickets, all the things you were hearing about. And it gave it to us in perpetuity as long as we paid 250,000 a year. Further, created sort of the two main panamanian cities. They were closer to the canal than five miles, so the result was they got surrounded by a canal zone, and their growth was constrained by that. At was the situation we were dealing with. When we said we were going to have a new treaty relationship that would have a fixed duration, the model we used and this was the panama canal treaty, the one that will terminate at the end of the year the model we used was the postworld war ii base rights agreements we had done around the world where you have right to use territory. You have rights to do certain things, but those rights are defined functionally, not geographically. You do not just take a piece of territory and say that you have authority over everything there. You say we need this territory to do canal operations and in that tour entire in that territory, do all the things proper to that. That makes it more comp located because you have to think ahead what these things are going to be. Easements for your powerline and what have you. You also have associated with that the equivalent of the canal personnel of the status of forces agreement. This is something that says americans who are working for the u. S. Government in that country will be exempt from customs duties, exempt from taxes. If they get into criminal problems, we have a certain degree with criminal jurisdiction over them and the like. At the same time, panamanians are not going to be subject to u. S. Jurisdiction on those matters. Theyreaty basically says cancel the old treaty to get rid of perpetuity, get rid of total u. S. Jurisdiction in the canal, and then turns around and says panama grants the United States the functional rights necessary to run the panama canal for the of the years to the end century and also grants the United States the functional rights to defend it to maintain military bases there. And this implement agreements for each of those articles that have all the details about customs duties and the like. It also the panama canal treaty made provisions for this of operation of the canal to panama, and this is one of the great contributions. In the treaty, it provided that there would be a board even though it was a u. S. Agency running the canal for the entire isdiction of the treaty the Canal Commission would be made up of five americans and for panamanians, so you would start having panamanians who were getting experience at that level, board of directors level in the operations of the canal. It also made provision that the chief executive officer of the Canal Commission for the first 10 years would be an american with a panamanian as deputy, and then it switched, and a Panamanian National became the director. And the deputy became american. Though those guys were working for an american they were agency, panamanians, and they were gaining that experience, and that was replicated down the line. I think that is one reason we were in very good shape, and i would second what roger said about the people in the canal their dedication. They always were dedicated to that operation of the canal, and they put the same dedication into making a good, smooth, seamless transition to panamanian authority. That is the scheme of the panama canal treaty. That me ask you one more question about the panama canal treaty. That treaty in another itself then said how much money we would give to panama directly every year . It provided i should be this case is we in not the taxpayer, but the users of the canal via the toll system, under the original 1903 treaty, they got 250,000 a year. Under the treaty of 1977, they a sixpayment its a little bit comp located. Six payments of 10 million a year. They got royalties based on the amount of traffic going through the canal and got certain amount ton, which i think is amounted generally in the area of around 70 million a year, and another provision says if the canal made a profit, that the first 10 million of that would go to panama. Anyway, there were also payments taken out of that to the u. S. Treasury to pay us back interest on the original u. S. Investment in the canal, and i had forgotten, but it was in the tens of millions as well. There has been money flowing out from the canal to both governments on the treaty. Not money going from the u. S. Taxpayer into the panamanian system. That is one treaty. Yes, and that is also the canal operation. The u. S. Did, of course, pay for the operation of our military thes, and those come out of Defense Department budget, but the canal operation, the salaries we pay americans and payments remain to panama and payments we make to ourselves all of that came out of the toll s. It provided this modern base rights type of agreement functionally defined rather than geographically defined. You could not do in a treaty that had a fixed duration is to deal with what is going to happen after the United States gives up the authority over the canal. If the treaty terminates, what provisions do they have . So we did a second treaty. The treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the canal. This treaty, interestingly, was roughly modeled on a similar treaty from the 19th century that governs the use of the suez canal in egypt. Done between constantinople and many of the european powers at the time. Both of them, what they have in common is that canals will be open to ships of all nation on a nondiscriminatory basis. The operator is obligated to make it available to everybody , toust and reasonable tolls not impose regulations that are not necessary to the efficient operation of the canal, to basis those on inequality regardless of the nationality of the ship coming through. That was one important part. In the original treaty, that could be covered because that treaty was in perpetuity. Here we wanted to have a treaty that would cover those same points, which was binding on us as long as we were operating the canal, and it will be binding on panama that they are obligated to the same standards of nondiscrimination during the time that they operate the canal now and in the future. That treaty also had a couple of important points that were mentioned earlier that became very important during the debate here. One was the idea of expeditious transit for u. S. Ships. That is built into the treaty originally. During the senate debate, that got clarified or made more precise, but the treaty provides that government ships, warships of the united aids and panama, given their key contributions to the panama canal, would be able to transit the canal up ahead of the line during wartime. In perpetuity . In perpetuity, yes. The idea was that it was a bit of an exception to the idea of neutrality and nondiscrimination that we do discriminate a bit in our own favor in terms of priority of transit, although everybody else gets to go through as well. The onend provision was that was just mentioned in the interview with president arroyo president royo, which was dicey to draft an even more dicey to debate later on, but the idea was that a provision that would allow each country panama and the United States would obligate each of us to take whatever action was necessary to keep the canal open and functioning on a nondiscriminatory basis in accord with the neutrality treaty sort of the enforcement clause of the neutrality treaty. The reason it was dicey was for panama, there was always the fear that this would turn into some u. S. The u. S. Would interpret this as intervening in their internal affairs and change their government in a way that we might like. On the u. S. Side, we were very keen to have it spelled out as clearly as possible that we did have this right in order to protect the operation of the canal, not to play in panamanian internal affairs, but trying to find the right balance between the student concepts the concept is fairly clear, but how you write it in such a way that everybody is comfortable became a difficult thing. We found some language in the treaty. It then later was interpreted publicly by both president carter and the general, and the language that they said was by senatorporated thereand senator byrd were the amendments that were made airing the during the debate i would say made more explicit whate was already there. It did not change the understanding, but it made them one more question before we go to the signing ceremony. If there were another man well noriega and he were to take over panama and something were to in terms of the actual running of the country of panama, we could go back into panama . Yes, although i think what both sides really envision as being the more likely scenario you are taking an extreme one the reason we went after noriega was not because of the canal, but the cause because he, for one thing, shot some of our people. But the more likely thing is if somebody else was bothering the , a terrorist from another country, another power, insurgency or Something Like that that panama could call upon us. The idea is that the parties have an absolute common interest would act in cooperation, that they would be occasions in which we might find ourselves acting unilaterally are exceptionally rare, but we wanted to make sure that they were covered as well, and they are. That will continue on forever. September 7, 1970 seven, the signing ceremony do you remember . I remember it well. Working on the treaty for about 10 minutes before the signing ceremony. Theres always last issues in translation and all of that stuff. Hadpanamerican union caught us. It was quite dramatic. All of the heads of state or virtually all of the heads of state from the hemisphere were brought together to witness the signing. There had not been a conclave like that in quite a long time. 1978, when president carter gives this fireside chat about the panama canal. Good evening. 75 years ago, our nation signed a treaty which gave us rights to build a canal across panama. It was an historic step of joining the atlantic and pacific oceans. The result of the agreement has been a great benefit to ourselves. Other nations throughout the world who navigate the high seas. Of the canal was one of the greatest engineering feats of history. Although massive in concept and construction, it is relatively simple in design and has been reliable and efficient in operation. Are deeply proud of this great achievement. The canal has also been a source of pride and benefit to the people of panama but a cause of some continuing discontent because we have controlled a , andlewide strip of land because they consider the original terms of the agreement to be unfair. The people of panama have been dissatisfied with the treaty. It was drafted here and not signed by any panamanians. Those who signed the original treaty said it was vastly advantageous to the United States and not so advantageous to panama. In 1954, after consulting with former president s truman and eisenhower, president johnson committed our nation to work toward a new treaty with the republic of panama, and last summer, after 14 years of ofotiations, after kid democratic president s, we reached and signed an agreement that is fair and beneficial to both countries. The United States senate will soon be debating whether these treaties should be ratified. Negotiations, we were determined that our National Security interests would be protected, that the andl would always be open useful and available to ships of all nations, and in time of need or emergency, our warships would have the right to go to the head of the line for priority passage through the canal and that our military forces would have the permanent right to defend the canal if it should ever be in danger. The new treaty meets all of these requirements. Let me outline the terms of the agreement. There are two treaties one covering the century and the other guaranteeing the safety, openness, and neutrality of the canal. For the rest of this century, we will operate the canal through a nineperson board of directors. Five members will be from the United States and four will be from panama. Present canal the zone, we have the right to select whatever lands and borders our military and civilian forces need to maintain, operate, and defend the canal. About 75 of those who now maintain and operate the canal are panamanians. Years, as we 22 manage the canal together, this percentage will increase. The americans who work on the canal will continue to have their rights of promotion and retirement. E will share with panama shallthe past, the canal continue to be neutral. This is not a partisan interest. They are endorsed by businesses and professionals, leaders, especially those who recognize the benefits of goodwill and trade with other nations in this hemisphere, and they were endorsed overwhelmingly by the Senate Foreign relations they may move closer to ratification by approving this treaty. I have recommended changes which we do not feel are needed. The changes are supported enthusiastically by every member of the joint chiefs of staff. General george brown, the chairman, general bernard rogers, chief of staff in the army, admiral james holloway, chief of naval operations, david jones, chief of staff of the air force, and general louis wilson, commandant of the marine corps responsible men whose professions in the defense of the preservation of our security. The treaties also have been overwhelmingly supported america, but predictably, they are opposed would likehose who to see disorder in panama and a disruption of our political, economic, and military ties with our friends. The treaties also have been opposed by many americans. Much of that opposition is based on misinformation. Termsd that when the full of the agreement are explained, most people are content that the National Interest of our country will be served best by ratifying the treaty. Tonight, i want you to hear the s. Ct i want to answer the most serious questions and tell you why i feel the panama canal treaty should be approved. The most important reason to theyy the treaty is that are in the highest National Interests of the United States and will strengthen our position. N the world our security interests will be stronger. Opportunities will be improved. We will demonstrate that as a large and powerful country, we fair andto be honorable with a proud and smaller sovereign nation. We will honor our commitment that the panama canal will be open and available for use by their ships at a reasonable and competitive cost both now and in the future. Let me answer specifically the most prominent questions about the treaties will our nation have a right to protect and against anyanal armed attack or met against the canal or ships going through it . The answer is yes. It is contained in both treaties and also in the statement of understanding between the leaders of our two nations. The first treaty says, the united its of america and the republic of panama commit themselves to protect and defend the panama canal. Each party shall act in accordance with its constitutional processes to meet the dangers resulting from an armed attack or other actions threatened the security of the. Nama canal the new treaty says the United States of america and the republic of panama agree to maintain the regime of neutrality. In orderbe maintained that it shall remain permanently useful. To explain exactly what that means, the statement of understanding says under the neutrality treaty, panama and the United States have the responsibility to assure that will remainanal open and secure to ships of all of direct interpretation of this principle is that each shall in accordance with their respective constitutional processes defend the canal to neutralityreat and consequently will have the right to act against any aggressors or threats directed against the canal or against vessels through the canal. It is obvious that we can say whatever militants we can take whatever military action is necessary to make sure that the canal always remains open and safe. Giveurse, this does not the United States any rights to intervene in the internal affairs of panama, nor will al our military action ever be directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of panama. The literary experts agree that even with the Panamanian Armed forces joined with us as brothers against a common enemy, it will take a large number of anyican troops to ward off attacks. I as president would not hesitate to deploy whatever armed forces are necessary to defend the canal, and i have no in a sustained combat that we will be successful. Way there is a much better than sending our sons and grandsons to fight in the jungles of panama. We would serve our interests better by implementing the new treaty, an action that would help to avoid any attack on the panama canal. What we want is a permanent weht to use the canal, and can defend this right through these treaties, through real cooperation with panama. The citizens of panama and their government have already shown their support of a new and it will be signed by many other nations, thereby showing their stance. The new treaties will naturally from a passive and sometimes deeply resentful bystander into an active and interested partner whose vital shared. S will be this agreement leads to cooperation between our country and panama. Anotherntry question is why should we give away the panama canal zone . As many people say, we bought it and paid for it. Repeat a very important point we do not own the panama canal zone. We have only had the right to use it. The canal zone cannot be compared with the United States territory. We bought alaska from the russians, and no one has ever doubted that we own it. We bought the louisiana territories. That is an integral part of the United States. From the beginning, we have made an annual payment to panama to use their land. Owndo not pay rent on your land. The panama canal zone has always. Een panamanian territory the u. S. Supreme court and president have repeatedly acknowledged that sovereignty of. Anama over the canal zone we have never needed to own the anymore thanzone we need to own a strip of land all the way through canada to alaska. The new treaty would give us what we need not ownership of the canal but the right to use it and to protect it. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said the Strategic Value of the canal lies in its use. Can ourquestion warships and time of need or emergency get through the canal immediately instead of waiting in line . So that clearly by guaranteeing that our ships will always have expeditious transit through the canal to there could be no possible disagreement about what these words mean, the joint statement says that expeditious assure is intended to the transit of such vessels through the canals as quickly as possible without any impediment with expedited treatment, and in case of need or emergency, to go to the head of the line of vessels in order to transit the canal rapidly. Will be treaties affect our standing in latin america . Will they create a socalled power vacuum . Which our enemies might move in to fill. They will do just the opposite the treaties will increase our nations influence. Will remove a major source of antiamerican feeling. The new agreement has already provided proof to the people of this hemisphere that a new era, friendship, and cooperation is beginning, and that what they last remnant of alleged american colonialism is being removed. Individuallyi met with the leaders of 18 countries in this hemisphere. Between the United States and latin america, there is already a new sense of equality, a sense of Mutual Respect that exists as part of the panama canal treaties. This opens up goodwill, trade, jobs, exports, and political cooperation. If the treaty should be rejected, this will all be lost, and disappointment and despair among our Good Neighbors and friends will be severe. In the peaceful struggle against alien ideologies, like communism, these treaties are a step in the right direction. Nothing could strengthen our competitors and adversaries more than for us to reject this agreement. What if a new canal should be needed in the future . This is been brought up over and over throughout the century, from before the time the canal was built up to the last few years. Every study has reached the same conclusion, that the best ways panama. The canal is in the treaties say that if we want to build such a canal, we will build it in panama, and if a canal is to be built in panama, that we, the United States, would have the right to participate in the project. This is a clear benefit to us. It ensures that 10 or 20 years from now, no unfriendly but wealthy power will be able to purchase the rights to the canal, to bypass the existing canal. Perhaps, maybe that other nation in control of the only usable waterway across the is this the business the isthmus. Under the new treaty, any payment to panama would come from tolls from ships who use the canal. The present and future stability and the capability of the panamanian government . Do the people of panama themselves support this agreement . Panama and her people have been our historical allies and friends. The present leader of panama has been in office for more than nine years, and he has a stable government which has explored the development of Free Enterprise in panama. They will elect a president and Vice President by majority vote. In the past, regimes have years, nout for 75 panamanian government has ever wanted to close the canal. Wants the canal open and moving, perhaps even more than we do. Canals continued operation is important to us, but it is much more than that to panama. To panama, its crucial. Panama would be about as likely to close the canal as we are to close the interstate highway system in the United States. Panama give the new treaty their support. The major threat to the canal comes not from any government of panama, but from misguided persons who may try to fan the. Lames of dissatisfaction theres a final question about the deeper meaning of the treaties themselves to us and to panama. Recently, i discussed the treaties with David Mccullough, author of the path between the seas the great history of the panama canal. He believes the canal is something we built and have looked after these many years, it is ours. This is very different from just ownership. Canal, talk of the for,er we are old, young, or against the treaties, we are very deep and elemental feelings about our own strength. Still, we americans want a more humane and stable world. We believe in goodwill and strength. S well as this agreement with panama is something we want the cause we. Now it is right this is not merely the surest way to protect and save the canal. This is about a people who are still confident, still creative. This new partnership can become a source of National Pride and strength in much the same way that building the canal was 75 years ago. Acts a spirit in which we that is very important. Theodore roosevelt, who was president when the canal was itself sawry history itself. Wouldanges it has brought not be lost on him. He knew that change was inevitable and necessary. But if Theodore Roosevelt was to endorse the treaties, and im quite sure he would he could see the decision as one by which we are demonstrating the kind of great power we wish to be. Afford avoid many issues, as roosevelt would say. All we can determine for ourselves is whether we shall meet them well or ill. The panama canal is a vast, heroic expression of that ageold desire to bridge the divide and bring people closer together. This is what the treaties are all about. In this historic decision, he and applaud us for being a great and generous people, with the National Strength to do what is right for us and what is fair for others. Thank you very much. This week, while congress is in recess, watch American History tv in prime time. Each weeknight at 8 00 eastern, American History tv will feature a variety of topics on the early american republic, jewish history, world war ii, and sports history. Let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. Us. Us or email join the cspan conversation. Like us on facebook. Follow us on twitter. While congress is on break this month, cspans prime time features a wide range of political views and topics. This week, a debate on americas greatness, Veterans Health care, and the center for Disease Control and prevention. We visit the atlantic best club clube the atlanta press. Let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. Join the conversation. Next, an event commemorating the 150th anniversary of the battle of the crater. The battle of the crater took place july 30, 1864 as part of the siege of petersburg. The ceremony includes in the unveiling of the stand by the u. S. Postal service and remarks by historian james blankenship. This event from petersburg is one hour 15 minutes. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Morning for this being with us here at Petersburg National battlefield on the 150th anniversary of battle of the crater. My name is chris price. You who were with us this morning
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.