peter: i am going to go ahead and turn it over to john. i want to start with something i read in the introduction. just absolutely fascinated by. and it is about your father. it is really a lovely story. irwin silber. book, published a "songs of the civil war." he was not like a diehard civil war buff. he was not that kind -- nina: he did like to sing the songs. peter: i have a question about your father. this is what you wrote. "this book is not about my father civil war. it is partly about the people who created the civil war my father came to love as well as those who created the kind of civil war that he despised." so tell us, what did you mean by that? how can that help us sort of frame your book? then we will turn it over to john. nina: so i think come in terms of the kind of the civil war that he came to love, i guess i would say that was the civil war -- i am going to say it was the civil war created by the popular front. by that, i mean this sort of loose coalition of civil rights organizations, left-wingers, some people even in roosevelt's administration and the new deal administration, also the kind of people who were rooted, say, in the wpa, the works progress association, the people collecting oral histories, folk stories. the people collecting the oral histories of slaves, former slaves still living in the 1930's. that is what i mean. what my father saw was sort of that the civil war was not just that. he was kind of a bottom-up historian, some ways. it was not just a civil war of political leaders, military leaders. but it was a moment that ordinary people, black, white, expressed themselves, that were s,viously involved as soldier slaves, enslaved or escaping. he saw this as this dynamic moment of change. emancipation, more than emancipation. he kind of embraced that part of the civil war. the part he despised, i would say, was the kind that was, you know, repeating those very old traditional stories. basically what we call that lost cause story about slaveholders, "the tragedies that befell slaveholders when their way of life was taken away from them." the kind of story that basically manipulated the history of slavery. didn't really talk about its horrors. it would have been epitomized, certainly in the 1930's, by something like "gone with the wind." that was kind of the ultimate especially in of that -- if ever there was a movie my father despised -- john: that was it. nina: that was it. peter: a superb section that you have on "gone with the wind." i'm embarrassed to say i have never read the book. have you read margaret mitchell's? [laughter] i have not. nina: it is funny. when i teach a civil war class, i will often ask my students -- over the years, i have been asking them, who has read "gone with the wind"? it used to be i would say almost all of the women in the class had read it. basically, none of the men had read it. now, not so much. now, maybe there would be two or three who say they have seen the movie. john: seen the movie, yes. peter: we will come back to your father at the very end here. go ahead, john. i will turn it over to you. john: well, i am going to be transitioning into my doctoral studies at western university in ontario. and when i do so, i will be studying the first world war. and the 1920's, we see a questioning of the first world war -- was it worth it? was the cost worth it? etc. do we see this in the same frame with the american civil war at the same time, since there is a questioning of war in general? do we see this at the time with the civil war? or something manipulated to make it more appealing in that regard? nina: yeah, absolutely. ofhink that kind disillusionment about war that you are talking about, that you see especially in the 1920's, that is carrying over into a good portion of the 1930's. and there is a lot of apprehension about war in general. there is a lot of -- the kind of ambiguity and skepticism people felt about world war i is placed back onto the civil war, too. and you see it, for example -- there are a lot of historians who write about the civil war, scholars -- when we were in graduate school, there was that whole blundering generation. which kind of comes out of this moment and is very much influenced, i think, by that post-world war i mindset, which says, you know, was it really worth it? the horrors of that war were atrocious? . why couldn't people have figured out a way to make peace, to come to an understanding, so they did not have to have this horrific bloodshed? i think that attitude really does shape a lot of the thinking early on in the 1930's. you can see it -- one of the things i found so interesting -- i did some research into the 75th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. that would have been in 1938. and it was another one of those times where there were, like, a couple of thousand really ancient guys who were brought back to the battlefield. and it was interesting, actually. i think the federal government paid for them, which is kind of unusual. peter: absolutely, they did. nina: they pay for them to come back. thousandswere tens of of other people there as well, not just the veterans. the newspaper coverage of the event had this kind of oddly -- they will say things like, well, the horrors of world war i make the things that those veterans suffered in the civil war look insignificant. which you kind of think, that is rude -- you are supposed to celebrate them and honor them. it just felt like such an odd tone to strike at that moment. but that was kind of their feeling, was we have just gone through this horrible war, and let's not forget that. let's not get caught up in celebrating these civil war guys. let's remember just how horrible the first world war was. it was interesting to see that. the 1 -- maybe there was another -- the one big monument put up in the 1930's -- i always get it wrong. is it the eternal light peace memorial? or the internal peace light memorial? -- eternal peace light memorial? the eternal peace light memorial. that is the one monument that is unveiled at the 1938 reunion. to me, that is very much a product of its time and a product of that sentiment that says, there should be no more -- it has those symbols, two women who are entwined with symbols of peace. and it is not a monument, to me, that celebrates soldiers' heroism. it is a monument that is really about thank god that's over and let's have peace. correctnd john, you can me, that monument is made out of, what georgia sandstone? and maine granite or new hampshire granite? nina: it is one of those. john: yeah, exactly. idea of intertwining, for reconciliation purposes and peace and harmony. it was interesting you brought up the 75th, because i was -- for aof it from while i was on this kick where i enjoyed researching the 50th anniversary of gettysburg. and then i was reading about the 75th for a while. and the role of african americans in the 75th is totally different than the 50th. because we are still involved with jim crow and things like that, and things were starting to change a little bit on that front. is that how we can see that, as far as african-american history, -- history is concerned, they are getting more political clout at the 75th? or they are just getting more notoriety at the 75th? nina: i think what is interesting is, you know, at the 50th, the veterans who come back to gettysburg actually fought at gettysburg. at least i think that is right. john: you are correct. nina: at the 75th, if they had limited it to only men who had fought at gettysburg come would have -- they would have -- john: two. or ten. nina: the numbers would be really small. at the 50th, because there really were not african-american soldiers at gettysburg. yes, it is a jim crow period. but they are also excluded by the fact that there were not black soldiers at the battle of gettysburg. but in 1938, because they are not limiting it just to who fought at gettysburg, there are actually a number of african-american men veterans , who come to the 75th reunion and they are interviewed. there is a great collection of photographs, actually, at gettysburg of men who came to the 75th reunion. and a number of african-americans are present at the ceremony. peter: and just a little plug for my college -- gettysburg college housed most of the veterans. not in the dorms, but they had buildings that accommodated them. so for that reunion, it was centered on campus. nina: right. peter: so one of the things, nina, that you do so well in this book is you are able to recover a wide range of voices. the differences amongst people and how they used the civil war as a usable past. and i was really struck by your sensitivity to these complexities. nobody could come away from your book and say, you know, there was a white way of remembering the civil war during the 1930's and 1940's and there was a black way. that kind of reduction, you cannot find it. i want to stress -- it is a really well-written book. these are books that i think can be very challenging to write. these analytical vibes, it is hard sometimes to sustain a story. you have the analysis and you have the stories, and you make an important point. i would like for you to tell us, and you can range, wherever you you are telling us that the civil war was remade during the depression. go and any direction you want to go give any examples you want to , give. but help us to understand how it was remade and how it served various groups' various ends. nina: i guess one thing i would say -- one thing that struck me about the 1930's was it opened up a range of perspectives and voices who had a chance to tell their civil war story. -- stories. which, i would say, prior to the 1930's -- it is not that those stories were not out there or did not sometimes get into some books or records, but, in the 1930's, i think a range of perspectives got legitimacy and got a kind of standing and could challenge -- because i think up until the 1930's, overwhelmingly, the lost cause is kind of the predominant interpretation. so it is kind of striking that, in the 1930's, you have more african-american writers and artists who are able to kind of put out their vision of the civil war. you have people with a much more unionist perspective about the civil war who were able to put that position out there. partly, i think it is because, like the federal government, the wpa, the way unemployed writers, artists were employed -- and often, you had the black artists who made a mural. which depicted frederick douglass and abraham lincoln together and went up in the post office. and a kind of vision was possible. in an earlier period. that would be one thing. i guess the other point or the other avenue i would take on this, too, was how different abraham lincoln looked in the 1930's compared to earlier periods when lincoln was portrayed. and one way, i think -- so i would say, for example, in the early part of the 20th century -- it is not like people did not respect lincoln. it is not as if he was not a kind of central figure. but he tended to be celebrated as this reconciler, as the unifier, as the person who could heal the country and bring people back together again. in the 1930's, i think he emerged as a much more powerful figure of humanitarianism, somebody who was actually really using the power of the federal government to bring emancipation, to address the welfare of the people. and i think that that was partly, you know, that was a kind of response to the way franklin roosevelt wanted to create a whole new idea of lincoln. you know, in a way, i think roosevelt wanted to create his own lincoln that would kind of confirm what roosevelt himself was doing. someone kindd was of really strengthened the hand of the federal government but did so with the aim of helping the people. and that is what franklin roosevelt would have said about himself, so that was like, "wel l, that is what lincoln did, too." you have, over and over again, people repeating this theme. that lincoln -- he is not just "let's get the two sides together again." he is a much more forceful figure that uses the national government in those kinds of ways. peter: quickly, also, can you speak to lincoln's own background in kentucky and illinois? nina: well, you know, i am not sure that they -- well, i don't think roosevelt played it up. he did not play up all the different parts of lincoln's formation or childhood. although i think it is true that i think -- so many of the movies about lincoln in the 1930's tended to focus on his upbringing before he got to the white house. so some of the most popular lincoln movies or books or whatever in the period are really not about lincoln when he president but lincoln's romance with ann rutledge. lincoln as the postal clerk. lincoln wrestling with -- what his name? you know who i'm talking about. and that was also a kind of little bit of a strategy, too. the more you talk about lincoln in that phase of his life, the less he actually do have to talk about lincoln as leading an assault against southerners. so it is little bit easier to talk about the early lincoln than it is to talk about the late lincoln. peter: not politically contentious. nina: right. john: one of my former students in grad school just asked do you think that there is a relation to lincoln growing up poor and the depression in the 1930's? nina: absolutely. that is a really important theme, i think, that you see is the way there is this -- what resonates for a lot of people during the depression are these stories of hardship, overcoming hardship, the kind of obstacles somebody like lincoln had. you see that especially in -- i am thinking of carl sandberg's biography. -- first,s massive the two volumes about young lincoln. then the four volumes about lincoln in the white house. but those are really popular, extremely popular books, and i think those really play on that theme of the kind of poor conditions lincoln grew up in and then kind of what he is able to do with that and come into his own in the presidency. peter: you talked about the popular front. with lincoln and other aspects of the civil war. again thetry to get sense of the more radical, leftist edge when it comes to civil war history. like i said before, you have sensitivity to a range of perspectives. not reducing it to white and black is one of the great strengths of this book. what about the populist front and the leftist? nina: again, that is the kind of interesting thing. actually,ou had, explicitly left-wing writers and artists who had a voice and a platform in the 1930's. again, a lot of them because they had jobs in the wpa or they wrote plays that were part of the federal theater program. and you definitely see lincoln as a common theme. john brown, i should say, too, john brown is a particularly important figure for popular front writers. i could say their names, but i am not sure anybody would know, because they are kind of obscure. but you know john brown, because he kind of forges an alliance between whites and blacks, which, again, resonated -- if you were a kind of left-wing person in the 1930's, that would have been something that, to you, sort of captured the political possibilities of that moment. was, you know, could we bring black and white people together to express their common interest and their common goals and to fight their common enemies? and i think john brown was a perfect historical example for that kind of political program. he was an extremely popular figure, i think, for writers and artists working in that period. peter: and a quick follow-up before i turn it back to john. was there any usage of the civil war to offer a true class critique? american capitalism, global capitalism is dysfunctional, to say the least, in the 1930's. it seems to me now they have their platform from which they could give heavy blows to capitalism. and did they use that to accomplish their wins? nina: the phrase that comes up over and over again is the idea of "economic slavery." so it is kind of like drawing on the language of the civil war but, applied to the 1930's, is black, whetherre you are white, you are living with this moment of intense economic exploitation, that your wages are rock-bottom, your working conditions are as bad as they could be. so i think they draw on that idea and that whole theme of slavery, i think, becomes a very pronounced one in that language of the popular front. peter: and white folks are even identifying with the slave experience -- nina: and that is a whole other interesting theme. in some ways, it is still a little -- for example, i could see one manifestation of that comes when roosevelt, for example, roosevelt is championing abraham lincoln, because he wants to be a president in the model of abraham lincoln. but, at the same time, for roosevelt to kind of adamantly embrace the idea of racial justice is politically problematic. and it is problematic because roosevelt is a democrat. he relies on a whole contingent of southern white democrats in his party in order to pass new deal legislation. and for roosevelt to really kind of push the envelope on racial justice would alienate him from that large contingent of support. you have things like -- roosevelt would say, for example, abraham lincoln was not just the emancipator of slaves but those of heavy heart everywhere. which is, like, such a vague -- you know, i do not even know what that means. who doesn't have a heavy heart? right? [laughter] i think what he is really trying to do is he does not really want to press too heavily on the race issue. he wants to make lincoln somebody -- oh yeah, lincoln. for black people. he's for white people, too. and i think what you get out of that is the idea that white people can be slaves just as much as black people can be slaves. peter: like the saying "nothing to fear but fear itself." "nothing to fear but fear itself." what in god's name does that mean? people are so desperate in depression, yeah, we will go with that. like weight -- like, wait. no time for reflection. nina: exactly. john: it would look good on a shirt, but they did not think that way back then. [laughter] i thought it was very left-centerhow americans, leftists, if you want to say it, at that time embraced lincoln so hard-core. i was thinking of the men and women who went to the spanish civil war under the abraham lincoln battalion, and they are so engrossed with this model of abraham lincoln, what they thought he was. and they propped him up in that way, that they even named their lincoln, after abraham as a sort of freedom fighter. nina: exactly. exactly. and i do think that is kind of -- that is kind of the civil war my father -- that is his version of the civil war. that is his version of telling a story that recognizes lincoln for being a civil rights champion, by think it is -- but it is also, i think, for left-wingers, what they are trying to do in the 1930's is to say, we are not like some crazy foreigners. we are not trying to impose a foreign ideology that comes from russia or something like that. we believe in indigenous american radicalism. maybe it goes too far to say lincoln is radical, but, in a way, i think that is what they are trying to convey. so they are very interested in kind of reclaiming american figures who were kind of advancing democracy, basically. john: charlotte peters, who's been on here for a number of times -- he says, because of thel exhaustion through total retreat of woodrow wilson -- which woodrow wilson is another livestream. as a first world war guy, i have my apprehensions about woodrow wilson. but that is an interesting point, too. like what you said earlier, what he calls moral exhaustion, and then you go into the economic exhaustion and then the questioning of war itself, the questioning of classism, all that coming together into this stew. and then, as you have pointed out, white people saying that they were -- southern whites saying they were enslaved by northern system. nina: exactly. everybody was using the word "slave." everybody was a slave. everybody was saying "i was a slave, too," some way or another. the moral exhaustion thing, what he is referring to is this idea that wilson says, we have these high ideals and what you get afterwards is really? did that really come to fruition? so i kind of retreat from that, which i think is a very -- really interesting factor in the way world war i continues to kind of cast a shadow on people in the 1930's. and what happens -- this is a pivot i make in this book -- what happens with the kind of looming possibility of world war ii is how do people get morally reenergized? because world war i, again, has kind of drained them of this sense -- is there any war that can possibly -- why should we get dragged into another war again? that is just so fruitless. i think this is a real challenge for roosevelt administration. say, by 1939, by 1940, it's clear that this war is looming, that the united states is going to be involved. but how do they convince people, who feel the moral exhaustion, that they should commit? and again, lincoln is crucial to that process. because lincoln is sort of the figure that they embrace. roosevelt embraces him. a lot of people embrace lincoln [indiscernible] sometimes, there is a moral principle that is worth fighting for. the idea that lincoln would embrace -- this is pretty much the picture of lincoln -- lincoln embraces emancipation. embraces the abolition of slavery. this is all over the propaganda that leads up to world war ii, pictures of lincoln using this language that says we cannot live in a world that is half slave and half free. there is a great quote from robert penn warren where he talks about looking back on the period of world war ii, we used to go to the movies and at the end, what flashes across the screen was not a picture of washington or jefferson but it was lincoln. lincoln was a kind of, you know, the moral energy, the moral force that could sway people to say ok, maybe this is a war we should commit ourselves to. peter: you mentioned the movie. you refer to the code. nina: the motion picture code. yeah. peter: what is the code? want to go down "gone with the wind," that's fine, but if you would rather bring in a different movie, that would be ok. nina: the code -- 1934 -- the hollywood motion picture association says we have to have something that is a more formal standard that we use to apply to movies that have to do with relations between men and women. what are we going to depict in terms of sexuality. it was also, and i did not realize this, a big part of the code had to do with how race relations would be depicted and part of the code said, we don't want to show anything inflammatory in terms of white and black relations. we certainly do not want to show anything that suggests racial intimacy. miscegenation, whatever they would call it. that was also another feature of the code. which, you know, sometimes that has the effect of taking black people out of the movie altogether so that would not ever be a possibility. to me, it's sort of comes up in an interesting way in "gone with the wind" because in producing "gone with the wind," he shows -- he knows he can't and does not want to reproduce "birth of a nation." he doesn't want a movie where there is clear racial hostility. instead, what he wants is a movie that is a little more lighthearted. that has a more friendly approach to black-white relations. what you get from that is a stereotype and a misreading in its own way. it is not the belligerence and angry hostility of "birth of a nation" but it is that -- everybody loved each other on the plantation. peter: every enslaved person is docile. he has a degree of influence. the caricature, the stereotype. she's still playing that stereotype. i'm going to ask about another movie. your analysis of the shirley temple movie is fascinating. [laughter] i cannot get the title in my head. nina: "the littlest rebel." peter: that's right. nina: people will confuse that with "the little colonel." they are very similar. peter: tell us about "the littlest rebel." nina: shirley temple, 1935. she is the daughter of a confederate and her father is off fighting. i think a union contingent comes to her plantation and somehow or other she befriends a union soldier. it is a very convoluted plot. a big part of the movie involves this happy-go-lucky life she lives on the plantation where bill bojangles robinson is the butler, the head of the household. that is an opportunity for them to do some dance numbers together, so that is important. but somehow or other by the end of the film -- [indiscernible] -- there is an accusation that the father has been a spy and the union soldier that has befriended her was helping her father this five. then they are both imprisoned. by the end of the movie, shirley temple and bill robinson have to go see lincoln and plead with lincoln. >> there you go. nina: there you are. shirley temple -- she is sitting on abraham lincoln's lap. they eat an apple together. they eat an apple together. he is all folksy and he says, well, ok. the way the movie ends. it is not lincoln freeing the slaves. but it is lincoln freeing her father and the union soldier. peter: this lincoln is very lucky that his face did not melt from the light in the studio. they look like whacks. -- wax. [laughter] nina: it looks pretty awful. peter: do you show "gone with the wind" to your students? what is your take on that? some people would be deeply offended to have to watch it. nina: i have had my students watch both of those movies. i teach a class regularly on the civil war and memory and usually what i do for that class is i will say, there are all kinds of movies, and i will give them a list of choices. pick any of these movies. we will share our stories about what we watched. i do find that quite a number watch the shirley temple movie. in many cases, especially with "gone with the wind," and i am not sure i will show "birth of a nation" anymore because that one is deeply offensive. i tell them in advance they will see things that are very different from what we see today in movies. "the littlest rebel" is particularly shocking because there is a scene when shirley temple appears in black face. i think they come away thinking, wow. maybe they have seen reports in the news now, somebody being in blackface. the governor of virginia, for example. to see that in a movie leaves a profound impression. >> jeremy has an interesting question. would you have something like lincoln in south carolina? lincolnll, you know, was a kind of universal figure in a lot of wartime propaganda. there were some white southerners who talked about finding a way to appreciate lincoln. it is true that -- for example, douglas freeman, well-known as a biographer of robert e lee. he was enlisted pretty significantly to gin up propaganda from world war ii and using the example of lee, in terms of his military acumen. the problem was, freeman was put into work a lot to make that case. it was harder to make the case for lee as a kind of moral figure, somebody who harnesses this moral energy. it was harder to make the case for lee than it was to make the case for lincoln. lincoln was used much more often. but the question is right because it points to a tension i am sure the roosevelt administration was aware of. this came up in the news. it is right around the time of world war ii that a lot of military bases were named for confederate generals. that is another thing that is going on. how do we kind of not -- [indiscernible] -- potential recruits coming out of the south? not alienate southern whites. peter: there is a section in your book -- time to spur on enlistment as well. if i am an undergraduate and you have assigned your own book to me -- nina: and you found it online somewhere, so you did not have to buy it. [laughter] peter: they come to you after this. right? they say, you know, i found this book and it is pretty depressing because it seems to me that the search for the past is a search -- to use the past for their own interest. sometimes for sordid purposes. rather than getting to the truth or deeper understanding, what this book tells me is interpretations are changing because people are using this thing. what would you say to your students? nina: sometimes, that is true. that is illuminating in and of itself because it tells us something about her own political moment and how people will constantly use history. to further a particular cause. but there's another side to it, too. you learn a political lesson about how people are always using history to further a particular cause. there is another part of it, too. when i looked at the 1930's and saw a range of perspectives and voices that were being heard -- we would never as limited and problematic as they are, to have the oral histories done with ex-slaves, the kind of material that was unearthed, made possible, it's hard to imagine us doing our work without having -- without getting that kind of material now to understand and to work with and to pour over. so i think, the 30's, they really do have, it makes our civil war world so much richer to have that 1930's perspective. peter: and the challenge. in some places, not all. there were people who were foreshadowing the challenge. we do see some >>. right. the people -- the idea that people would say this is not the only interpretation of the war that is out there. peter: what if i asked you about today? saying what i'm going to say to , that from your book i was drawred to see how people from the past in meaningful ways. was af their history little imperfect, i still, it just made me feel good. the history really mattered. a feeling now that history doesn't matter as it once did. going a bit further, the civil war is this close to being irrelevant. what we have seen of late is that our historians, and part, they say here's our chance to talk about our connections to the past. and we have done so for the most part in a sophisticated way. but it's a part of a democratic moment, and upsurge, upheaval. these are moments in which i don't see history as a guide or inspiration. i can be wildly wrong or maybe not. i don't see anything today -- we are in the maelstrom. that's the quick response. i would like to argue against myself. you can imagine that i am a real joy to live with. nina: the students are like, which is the answer? [laughter] peter: i want you to leave my class confused. there's no good answers there. be confused. yeah, so what do you think? about my observation. nina: all right, well, maybe i'm a little confused. peter: so the question is, is the civil war starting to lose its relevance in light of what has happened over the last few weeks? do we see that some of these groups on the ground, black and white folks and the issues they are confronting -- are they connected to the past? i am not criticizing anyone. go to england, for example. does anyone get revved up about the english civil war? does anyone in france feel strongly about napoleon now? are we at that moment? nina: isn't the very fact that one of the first places people are going to are those civil war monuments? isn't that an indication that people are mindful of the history? when you recognize that, ok, here is the statute of jefferson davis. the marchers took jefferson davis down. john: davis went down last night, yeah. nina: so, the fact on some , level, there is an awareness of history because there is an awareness that there was jefferson davis, who justified the system of slavery, went to war over the system of slavery. that is the kind of historical knowledge that people have. there is a knowledge that that statute was not telling the truth. that its very presence was a whitewash of history. it is not coming out in the clean and neat way we might want it to, but it does feel somehow that people are reckoning with history. peter: let me just say, i don't think it should come out in a clean and neat way, i just throughout the questions. what do you think your father with think about this moment? what would your dad say? nina: god, he wouldn't like donald trump, i would say that. i guess that goes without saying. say, he would,d he would say it's a moment when who knows what's going to happen. you know, in a way it's like there's a kind of, there's definitely a history from the ground up that is taking place right now. and so that kind of popular front guy in him would say yeah, who knows where this is going to go. but it's great to see people expressing themselves. i'm sure that would be something he would focus on. peter: absolutely, absolutely. it's been so wonderful to have you. do we have any other questions from the audience, stephen? nina: i love the questions that we got already, they were great. >> our audience is always ready to rock 'n' roll with questions, comments. it's been great. a lot of good comments in here. we will have to get to those, later. nina: but i get to see them? yeah, oh yeah, they will all be published right underneath this video and we can link you to those as well. peter: john, we should go to your facebook page to find the comments? >> yes, yes, they are all on the facebook page right now. out for youhe link to be able to go over them whenever it is convenient for you. i know a lot of people would love to hear back. i actually pinned a link to the society of civil war history at the top as well, for people to join. i also have the link in the description to the side. i don't know which way it is, your book from unc press, along with the discount code, which we have the books there and again, i have the discount code here for anyone who wishes to do so. i know a lot of people have reached out and said they have enjoyed using the discount code gavese they love that unc such a steep discount. >> we won't make any money off our books. nina: i don't think we got into this work for that reason. don't make any money. people are shocked. how much money did you make it? they don't want to know. nina: a nice dinner, maybe. [laughter] peter: nina, it was great seeing you. thank you so much for coming on the show. ireally enjoyed the book and found your father quite a fascinating guy. a few more years? nina: who knows how long. [laughter] >> i would love to hear more about his time with bob dylan. was listening to girl from the north country today and was like oh, bob dylan. [laughter] peter: so, john, we have two shows coming up. nina was going to come and speak. obviously, that was canceled. we will do three shows on saturday as a recognition of a conference. we start on saturday morning. what time do we begin? john: we begin at 9:00 on saturday. nina: say heide scott for me. peter: yeah, he's a great guy. and then after that we have jen murray, -- jim murray from oklahoma state. and then we have a few hours then we do the tour with chris and john and myself. that will all be on saturday. i'm looking forward to seeing everyone. nina, again, thank you again. john: thank you so much. thank you, p, as always. thank you, everyone, for watching, for commenting. for sending in your questions. you are fantastic with that each and every time we go live. this will be published on my facebook and youtube pages. later on it will be on the cwi youtube channel for you all to peru's and enjoy it your own convenience. thank you all so much and i hope you will tune in saturday, when we wear ourselves out doing so many live streams. it's going to be fantastic, we are going to have a great time and we hope that you tune in and enjoy those as well. have a great night, everybody. thank you for watching. take care of yourselves. nina: by. e.-- by ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] >> you are watching american history tv, covering history c-span style with event coverage, eyewitness accounts, archival films, lectures and quality -- lectures in college prep classrooms and visits to museums and historic places, all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3. you are watching american history tv. every weekend on c-span3 explore our nation's passed. c-span3, created by america's television companies as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. like american history tv, keep up with us during the week on facebook, twitter, and youtube. learn about what happened this day and history can see preview clips of upcoming programs. follow us at c-span history. >> the c-span cities tour travels the country, exploring americancan can -- story. since 2011 we have been to many communities across the nation. like many americans, our staff is staying close to home due to coronavirus. next, a look at one of our city tour visits. pres. clinton: his name was william c. velasquez, but everyone knew him as willie. willie was and is a name synonymous with democracy in america. through the organization he founded, the southwest voter registration education project,

Related Keywords

Georgia , United States , Maine , Kentucky , Virginia , Togo , France , Reunion , Americans , America , American , John Brown , Lincoln Peter , Carl Sandberg , Willie , Woodrow Wilson , Shirley Temple , Irwin Silber , Nina Silber , Abraham Lincoln , Douglas Freeman , Jim Murray , Robert E Lee , Penn Warren , Bob Dylan , Charlotte Peters , Lincoln , Heide Scott , Ann Rutledge Lincoln ,