In spanish, this means a man who works with his arms and his hands. The big question is why braceros . This video promoted the program, a guest worker agreement between the u. S. And mexico between 1942 to 1964. Sunday morning at 10 00 eastern on road to the white house rewind. My view is that the soviets are aggressive, they have overstayed in afghanistan, they have bitten off more in my judgment than they should be allowed to digest. I think the best answer to it is for them to know that the United States is going to keep its commitments. I agree completely. Where people want to be free on soviet or cuban domination where the proxy troops are used are the cubans. The United States should be willing to provide weapons to any men who want to fight for freedom against those hostile forces. The republican primary debate between Ronald Reagan and george h. W. Bush. At 6 00 on american artifacts. The russell building is very neoclassical. The Hart Building is very modern. Some people have compared it to a large ice cube tray. Senate historian don richie takes us inside the newest of the three Senate Office building. The 1983 senate Hart Building to learn about its construction and place in congressional history. On the presidency at 8 00, Senior Historian david ward chronicles abraham lincolns life through photographs and portraits. Abraham lincoln takes time out to sit for that last photograph in which he does look kind of peevish. The eyes disappear. For the complete American History tv weekend schedule, go to cspan. Org. Next, author and professor Gary Gallagher discusses two questions stemming from confederate general robert e. Lees surrender to Union General ulysses s. Grant at appomattox in 1865. He analyzed whether appomattox was the end of the civil war. Second, mr. Gallagher looks at the wartime goals of the union and if these were in fact achieved. Dr. Gary w. Gallagher is the john l. Now the third professor in the American Civil War at the history of virginia. Now that means in o. W. Now is the director of the john now thats in au now center for civil war studies at uva. Gary is such a popular speaker that he allows organizations like ours to work him way too hard, but we do it anyway. He flew in a few hours ago. He wasnt here right when we started this morning because he was jetting up here from florida where he was speaking at another conference. Were very grateful to gary that we do feel a little guilty for asking him back so soon. Garys not only a prolific speaker and author, but a popular battlefield guide, one of the leaders in the battlefield preservation movement, and awardwinning teacher, and one of the most important mentors of graduate students in civil war history. As i noted when i introduced gary at the 2014 symposium, he dedicated his prizewinning book the union war to his graduate students at penn state and the university of virginia with admiration for their contributions to the field. I know that his students resipry kate that admiration as do all of us who enjoy and benefit from their work and his work. It is just an example of what gary and ed airs have done for the next generation of historians. Our previous speaker Carrie Janney is just one example. We owe it to gary to put in a plug for his late egs work, the recently released, the American Civil War, a history of the civil war era that he coauthored with dr. Joan wall. Today, we have asked gary to offer evaluation of trends in the civil war which he agreed to do in a talk entitled from war to reconstruction, peace, continuity, conflict, in postappomattox america. Ladies and gentlemen, Gary Gallagher. I dont think waite really feels guilty about anything, but he pretends well sometimes. Im very sorry that i missed the first two talks this morning. I did start my day in gainesville, as waite remarked, and i want to begin with my hat as director of the new now civil war, the john l. Now iii civil War University at virginia. I want to extend my welcome to all of you for this symposium that goes along with what im sure waite did earlier today. We a cosponsor for this symposium. As the months roll ahead in the future, i hope we work with the folks here again multiple times and i suspect that we will be. There should be a lot of giving and taking between these two organizations going forward. John kosky and i discussed my role in this program, and we decided i would focus on two questions that are very important to anyone who is trying to understand the end of the civil war and the very turbulent period that followed. We actually john asked what i wanted to do and i said thats what i wanted to do and he said okay. But we did exchange a lot of emails, didnt we, john . Here are my two questions. First, should we consider grants acceptance of robert e. Lees surrender that signaled the effective end of the conflict . I raise this in light of scholarship that positis a continuing war. My second question is there is a lost moment of possible revolutionary change regarding race and black rights in the wake of the conflict. The key to understanding this, i believe, lies in assessing whether most of the white north believed that the war had settled two momentous issues, saving the union, killing the institution of slavery, and that same white northern population really didnt care very much about extending anything that we would call equal rights to the freed people. Those are my two questions, and ill take them up in that order. Its very hard for me to just stand behind a podium. You have to understand im not comfortab comfortable. Id like to be walking around. Here i am. If i seem a little out of sorts, thats why. I may need help. Im not going to get it today. Im going the start with secretary of the navy, gideon wells. He is always a good place to start. Had one of the best full head wigs of anybody in the civil war and kept a really fine diary. He wrote in that diary on april 10th, 1865, about news regarding u. S. Grants, quote, capture of lee and his army. That is wells language, the previous day. The tidings were spread all over the country during the night, noted wells, and the nation seems delirious with joy. This surrouender of the great rebel captain virtually terminates the rebellion. There would be some continued, quote, marauding and murder. One day later, George Templeton strong, the observant new yorker, whose diary ranks among the best that we have, suggested in clipped sentences that the demise of lees army carried decisive weight. People hold the war virtually ended, period. It looks so, period. Lee is out of the game, period. He is sort of channelling ernest hemingway, except hemingway hasnt been born yet. Edward a. Pollard whose southern history of the war chronicled the life of the confederacy as it unfolded echoed wells and strong. In the final volume of southern history, which was completed and published in 1865, pollard ra d remarked, the surrender of lee in effect terminated the war. Ill put it in a little bit of a brief plug for pollard. Pollards four thick volumes are a vastly underused source. Its not quite a primary source, but its almost a primary source in different ways. Its full of his kind of nutty ideas about a lot of things, but it is also wonderfully instructive about innumerable suggestions about the civil war. He is worth it. Thats the end of my little commercial for pollard. I have no financial connection with that. Wells and strong and pollard, i think, anticipated how most americans would understand the end of the civil war. In other words, they would put appomattox in a very prominent position in their understanding of the end of the war. An increasing number of scholars, however, have questioned whether lees surrender should be reckoned a decisive indicator of the practical end of the conflict. T this builds on a phenomenon that has been present for a number of years and seeks to emphasize postwar violence in the former confederacy and the other conflicts enduring conflicts which are many and profound. Within this chronological reframing the war did not end at appomatt appomattox, it did not end with those iconic military surrenders that came in a group. It continued. It continued through reconstruction or through the jim crow era or down to the present. The war that never ended syndrome. Theres an example of that. Time magazines cover a very unfortunate choice that had lincoln on the front with a tear rolling down his cheek. If you go back and read that article, youll get a very nice sense of, no, the war didnt end then. Its still going on. These are the ways that that is happening. For far too long, argue those who embrace the analytic lens of a long civil war, a disproportionate number of authors and readers have burroed every more deeply in the era between sumter and appomattox treating those bloody years largely in isolation and thereby robbing the conflict of needed context. A longer perspective works against a focus on appomattox, of course. It was appomattox alongside gettysburg that was one of the two events that received by far the most attention during the centennial. Those were the two events that are the highlights. Too many attention to appomattox in this view creates a misleading impression that grant and lee fashioned an agreement in mclains parlor that just opened the door to reconciliation. Its too neat. Its too satisfying, too simple. Could not have been like this. I will say and say very strongly that no serious person can dispute the necessity of placing the civil war within a spacious 19th century context. More specifically any attempt to grasp the centrality of the war to the larger history of the United States, you have to place it in a much broader context. You have to engage with its longterm racial and constitutional and social consequences