>> the union policy was that if any foreign country does anything to aid this domestic rebellion that we will rock the world in flames. so you use this raise several different times and often if you do it in front of journalists and diplomats and he would strike a match in light his cigar. [laughter] he would fill the room with smoke. some thought that seward was a little off, may may be drinking too much and going around the bin, but i think he was crazy like a fox. i think he knew exactly what he was doing. if they worried that he was a little too happy about the idea of going to war, it didn't bother him. i think he wanted that but that's where the war had a hard power with one hand in this soft power effort in french european public opinion. that was very much part of his foreign-policy. with lincoln looking over his shoulder and participating in this kind of smart power strategy that they developed yes it could have very different. >> by this time, keep in mind they had put 2 million men in arms. this was the largest in the world. it proved beyond beyond all expectations of the world that a democracy could actually mobilize and start a war, a sustained war. they actually buy this time this time had built a very large and impressive navy. britain had had two wars with the united states and neither of them went well. okay the war of 1812 was a draw perhaps but it was not a victory for the largest naval power in the world. they didn't want a third one and there was also a good deal of sentiment in britain and they felt certain that his government would fall if they went to war with america. they had other domestic policies to worry about as well. there are people were people who were living through this and they felt that everything was at stake. there could be a world war. our ambassador to britain, charles francis adams, adams, who was the son of diplomats, he was the son of john quincy adams and the grandson of john adams had a keen sense of american history. a direct connection to the american revolution that we are now passing through the very crisis of our fate. it was. that's what the book is about. >> thank you professor doyle. [applause]. >> thank you all for joining us this evening. i hope you join us for the book signing in the library downstairs. thank you. >> book tv in prime time continues tomorrow night with best-selling authors. we will hear from joseph elliott. then former white house spokesperson discusses her memoir and the good news is and evan thomas on his book being nixon, a man divided. book tv in prime time each night this week at eight pm eastern p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> the c-span cities tour working with our cable affiliates and it is sitting cities across the country. this weekend we are joined by charter communications to learn about the history of grand junction colorado. the mining of a certain mineral had a long-term importance in this part of colorado. >> all over the colorado plateau and especially here in mesa county, outside of grand junction, we are surrounded by morrison rock. within the morrison, we find a lot of dinosaur bones and fossils and that's really intrigued scientist for a long time. the other thing we also find in the morrison is a mineral, rock called carta types. they come with three different elements, radium which is radio at active and was used to help solve and fight cancer and it also contains something to build and strengthen steel. so this was of extreme value. it also also contains uranium and that as we know is one of the best sources for atomic power and atomic weapons. >> colorado congressman was largely responsible for the development of this area. he he fought the battle to reserve water for western colorado by making sure we got our fair share. how did he he do that? well, beginning in his state career, and then going onto his federal career, he climbed up the ladder of seniority and was able to exercise, i think more power than you might normally have. certainly in the united states congress, where he was able to make sure colorado and western colorado would be treated fairly. he's first major success was the passage of the colorado passage in 1956. >> see all of our programs from grand junction on saturday on c-span2 book tv. then on american history tv on c-span three. >> as i said before ,-com,-com ma i wanted to do this event and i have been educated and stimulated by reading these two historians and i also got an extra bonus on baseball from the book on the first world series in 1903. but as one who actually spend time lobbying the civil rights act since 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965 and all of the voting rights act after that, this book and these books and the work of these authors, this is not their only work, as you know, it helps us to understand why the civil war and its causes and aftermaths and matters affecting race and the regional conflicts within our borders, the boundaries between state as well as national authority, national authority was a word that lincoln used and with it the significance of the game changer and how long it took to find a way of making it real. david reminded us of that when he was here a few years ago. and the work of these historians helps us with memory with how we apply it to our present situation, there are no permanent worries, i had in the supreme court today that the shelby county case was argued and came out depressed. and that's exactly why we have to take note at of anniversaries, last year was the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act. this year is the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act and in four days it's going to be in anniversary of versus board of education and the 150th anniversary of lincoln's assassination. we are going to hear why that was significant. so rather then do the traditional thing of having two eminent historians talk at us, they are going to have a conversation with each other and then we are going to have a chance to ask questions and because c-span is here there's there is only one microphone and so you're going to have to use the microphone near the column here. let us welcome james mcpherson and lewis to politics and prose. this is not his first time. and it would not have been loose first time if not for family situations. so we welcome you. >> thank you, it is wonderful to be here. can everyone here okay. okay, jim and i just spent four hours in the car coming down to new jersey. hopefully we haven't finished speaking about all of the issues that concern us and the world. that one of the things that concern us was the subtitle of your book as to why the civil war still matters. we just finished the sesquicentennial civil war celebrations and so why does it still matter? well, i think that maybe i try to answer that question with the main title of the book. the war that forged a nation. usually they are added to explain what the book is about because the main title usually doesn't do that. but in this case i think that it's the main title that helps to explain the subtitle and the civil war really forged the united states as a nation. and it also forged the nation to the beginnings of a process that turned us into the nation that we are today and in order to understand how we got to be the nation that we are today, i think that we need to look very seriously at the civil war and the causes and consequences in the north went to war to preserve the union and it was much more common to refer to the united states as a union during the first 70 or 75 years of our history. and the civil war turned it into a nation for those first 75 years of our existence as a country, there were many debates about the way that this was a federation of sovereign states that had yielded some of their sovereignty to a national government but had retained the essential sovereignty or whether the constitution that formed the united states was a compact between the people of all the states of a nation, if you will, as well as its government. that remained very much in contest during the antebellum years and i think that that was settled by the civil war, recognizing national supremacy and it turned the united states into a nation consisting of all of its people and of course, this brought on the war. not only did it resolve the issue of slavery by abolishing the institution, but when these amendments stirred up, it defined an entire basis of race relations and ethnic relations in this country over the past 150 years and continues to define those relationships. and another thing that helped to explain why the civil war still matters today is that before 1861 there were two philosophies on what kind of a people and what kind of a nation, if you will, that should be. there was one vision south of the mason dixon line and the ohio river that focused on and that includes a kind of aristocracy of land ownership as well as wealth that resisted some of the forces of the 19th century towards democratization and industrialization and the changes were rapidly happening in the first half of the 19th century that moved the north in the direction of an entrepreneurial capitalist democratic society. the civil war was a contest between those two visions of what the country ought to be and then it set the country on the course of becoming industrialized, capitalized him accredit nation. and so for all of those nations i think the civil war continues to matter as a way of trying to understand what kind of a country at we are today. and because abraham lincoln played a crucial role in the process, i would like to ask what sort of part lincoln played in forging the nation and the helps to explain this. >> you mentioned nation and freedom. and when you think back to the gettysburg address, lincoln uses that five times in that incredibly poignant speech. about how do you create a nation where really the idea of space and states rights had been in trial for so long. in that address comes in november 10 months later one of course it's part of the emancipation proclamation. but he continues to provide information to exact troops and moving forward in a variety of different ways including endorsing the 13th amendment. and so one of the incredible things about that speech was that it comes several days after appomattox and the american people are expecting a victory speech. the war is over. and lincoln waits, he comes to the white house and he says i can talk, i can't talk and he defers and the delays and he waits and at one point there is a band outside of the white house and he says one of jews strike up a song and play dixie. i always liked that song and not a we won the war we can say that we have recaptured it and then asking that he was offering a conciliatory gesture that would characterize his last speech. he talked about the problem of reconstruction. one of the terms of which we are going to rebuild this nation and striking in terms of the growth and development and change of the time. it's common to talk about it and to focus on it and you see it in that last speech. where they readmitted louisiana to the union, he comes out and he publicly endorses the black suffrage for the first time. so it's such an incredible moment speaking about the meaning of the war and john wilkes booze is among those standing in the crowd, and he said that at the last speech that you will ever made. to the extent in which he is part of civil rights and that includes the northern industrial capitalist state that howard friedman going to live in sort of be a into this new world of freedom. >> reconstruction is when you rebuild after a fire or damage from the storm. and another meaning is that you completely rebuild on a new pattern and a new foundation and so that contest between these two meanings of reconstruction and all sorts of other manifestations that grew out of these contested meanings was at the core of the -- okay, not only of the postwar years but the war itself. >> that's exactly right and the debate over reconstruction, restoration and that there from the beginning. and one thing that he understood from the start is that he had this vision and at some point this will start in denmark. what will this nation look like and his ideas about god going through a lot of changes in turmoil, part of the problem is how far can you go to reconstruct that if your assumption is that secession is unconstitutional and that they never really left the union and therefore they are entitled to all the rights of citizens, that paints a different set of possibilities for thaddeus stevens who talked in terms of a conquered territory. the lincoln had no use whatsoever for that. including the status of the states is a pernicious extraction and so for him it was very clear as well as practical that the states really had to be readmitted with a proper practical relation to the union. but what is that going to mean particularly for these individuals would have to make this transition and that becomes the nexus of the debate of the problems of reconstruction. >> one of the things that struck me about the civil war is the ironing of confederate success in the early stages of the war. the greater the confederate success, the greater destruction and the north had managed to win the war managing to capture richmond in 1862 coming on top of other union victories and it may well have been over and reconstruction would have been the union as it was. but robert lee and stonewall jackson success pushed lincoln and push the north to conviction that in order to win this war and reconstruct the union they were going to have to adopt a harder policy. a policy that would and the greater the more disastrous disaster it was. >> once the war was over of wanting a just and righteous peace but also a fair peace. this is the man that is six weeks before his last speech spoke of this with charity for all. the radical republicans did not like that. they thought that he was too soft and that he really didn't have what it would take to put his fist down and make the terms from readmission and reconstruction more harsh and visual in. and he writes in his diary that his assassination is a godsend. and it's shocking to think about and they thought that andrew johnson was the guy, that he was the one who had said that treason must be made odious. so he will do his complete turnaround. so that sense that he simply didn't have what they thought was needed to push this forward and keep the confederacy down turned out to be critical. >> when he said with charity for all, i have always wondered about the word charity and all. charity to all can have different meanings and usually the construction that has been on that is forgiveness for the former confederates. but it can also mean black populations and i could may well have been what he meant. and we are former slaves. the charity for all in the radical republicans may have missed the significance of that. see matt just some of that is right. and the complexity is lincoln understanding that there had to be a path towards a new set of relationships between white and black. no one ever knew what that path lies. earlier he wrote another in which he said that whites and blacks must put themselves in a new relationship. such an interesting phrase. and this was the id of the national government, that the federal government would play a role was in and of itself a radical idea. so it was unclear how the negotiation was going to take place by which whites and blacks were going to leave themselves in a new relationship. at the same time, judged lest we not be judged. didn't they start the war or fight to defend slavery, should they have not paid a price for what they were to be done. and it may have just made the transition a more successful one than what it should have been. and there is a kind of dynamic for evolution and almost in the category of revolutionary change during the war so that lincoln's policy in 1861 and 1862 and they were talking about a new birth of freedom, the country that was launched as a great experience and is now a changed country and the clock never be turned back. so there was a kind of attempts turn the clock rack by the latter half of the war and possibly sooner and there's no going back and it's going to be a radically different country as a consequence of the experience of war and that they may be created destruction. >> i mentioned this before that we often today talk about how the election of 1864 was. so that is the other point of this importance. nation, liberty, democracy. because part of what upset lincoln was secession and what seems to be the overturning of an election. >> i am convinced that he would have lost the election. he was convinced that every political operative, republican and democrat was convinced that he was going to lose because he was the commander in chief of a losing war. one that appeared to be unless without any chance of winning it, sacrificing the lives of hundreds of thousands of men for no good cause because during the stalemate of the military situation in the summer of 1864, it looked like this war could go on forever and never settle anything but they captured atlanta on september 2 and it turned that around 180 degrees and then it clearly demonstrated that nothing succeeds like success in which case the military success led to political success with military failure in lincoln's case, the buck stops with him. not only as president by the commander in chief. >> when talking about democracy money soldiers were part of this and he was concerned about the soldiers vote and after all that included george mcclellan that others may like and he kept them out of war. and that's ultimately why he got cashiered. and he says don't worry, they will vote while they shoot, sure enough that was part of this separate tabulated bank. >> that was part of a radical experiment that old soldiers on a referendum, it had never happened in history before as far as i am aware of. but most of the northern soldiers there was a case of democrats controlled by this and the other states had and we know that the soldiers voted to have 70% for lincoln even though at the beginning of the war the spread was probably close to 5050 and so it was a radicalized experience for many northern soldiers, no doubt about that. because one of the issues was the abolition of slavery that was an essential part of the republican platform that was repudiated by the democrats. so this election among other things is basically a referendum on slavery. and this makes certain that congress is going to pass the 15th amendment as they say that he had been elected in 1862 but was still in session and the next one would have, i think most of you have probably seen the movie lincoln, which focuses on his efforts to get the 13th amendment passed without having to wait trying to get it done in one of the more dramatic aspects of his presidency. >> went and chose carefully to decide which ones were and were not. so in 1862, those november elections are when they almost always lose the suit came six weeks after the emancipation from proclamation and that includes how his own town goes democratic am addicted to you tried your best and the people that have spoken and they said i chose not to interpret the results of the election away. he says the election was a referendum on the fact that the war was not going well and that is something that i plan to stand by. and so what is your view on this whole system tenniel tonda we just had gone through. >> congress had gone through this, it seemed that the 150th win by with a lot of great things going on and it was much more sporadic. >> congress did not pass a national civil war centennial commission. and my feeling about that as it is us when is not as important in terms of observation or a bicentennial. and there was a lot that went on there and there was a national bicentennial commission as well and so my feeling is that the fairly low-key observation which centered mostly on state activities in virginia was the most active i thought it was appropriate with lots of good books by authors like my colleague here. >> no what can we expect and as we think about that time of reconstruction and why the civil war still matters and that includes civil rights movement that carries down. are there any thoughts about what we could see in terms of scholarship and that includes as we continue to have anniversaries to commemorate the 14th amendment and the 15th amendment and other notable achievements. >> we will have a lot of other situations, there will be some serious work done the new review of reconstruction is not entirely successful as an effort to integrate american society than that equal citizens will be recognized. the reasons for the failure will be analyzed and our consequence of that process. and i don't think they will have anything that will be associated with the subsequent tenniel. the problem is there's no reconstruction parks. there are lots of civil war parks, you can go to get a lesson in history and gettysburg and others. and you can go to congress on the anniversary acts and not much is going to happen there. [laughter] >> in two minutes we're going to take questions from the audience. there's anyone that wants to talk about questions, that is fine. and so for me it always comes back to within an there's something about lincoln, as you know, that once you start to study him, he becomes more mysterious in some ways rather than less than i've given thought to read about what is it that i have this whole imagination and i wonder as you have been asked that before and i will say what i think. >> unquestionably one of the most important aspects of the image of lincoln is his iconic status in the american society. .. >> at the time of the dedication of the lincoln memorial he wrote a series of essays and said something that is striking, i love him not because he was perfect but because he wasn't and yet he triumphed. the world is full of people were educated in the gutter. fullfull of people who are born hating and despising their fellow man. to these i love to say see this man lincoln, he was one of you and he became abraham lincoln. in thatin that sense of rising up, becoming something, that potential of than all of us keeps us coming back time and again. [applause] >> i have to say i am reminded of something. i just want to tell story. this reminded me of the time of the hearing in the senate judiciary committee on the confirmation of robert bork. dan sullivan who was a law professor. what they did rather than talk was have a conversation before the senate judiciary committee along the lines that you did about the constitution. that is onethat is one of the best ways of all of this appreciating and learning. i want to start with the 1st question. suggested in your closing comments, but we feel deification of lincoln. yet when you wrote about the hundred days between september 22 of the emancipation proclamation and you have written so much on how we moved to a nation, lincoln's leadership is an this is political leadership and their -- it seems that part of our culture is anti-political and appreciating lincoln as political leader seems to be deemphasized in place of the effects of the martyrdom and deification, and i wonder if you could reflect on that. >> there is no question but that he was 1st and foremost politician. he 1st ran for office when he was 22 years old, 23 years old and knew salem will annoy well lost the 1st election and others,others, but he never lost his love for politics and his ability to practice politics. he was a master of the art of the possible, getting things done through the system. and i think your quite right that that often gets lost. preeminently he was a politician. he would not understand that in a pejorative sense. he would understand the way in which you govern and get things done we make progress and lead through the political institutions. >> and he loved it. let's not idealize them. he said about him that his ambition was a little engine a knew go see. he was a politician, ambitious, and you have played a game. >> deciphering lincoln questions, both of you have commented about 2nd inaugural, he said something, no idea what he really meant. he did not have a chance to write an autobiography but didn't to discuss any of these things? how we left purely with his words? what he meant about charity and the other terms that we don't know. >> one of the things of the most close nothing had ever known. he did not explain what he meant he wanted people to place there own interpretation what was sometimes i think intentionally ambiguous. in other respects we do sometimes have explanations of what lincoln really meant private secretary who became close to him, kept a diary recorded a number of different conversations with lincoln, private conversations. in some areas we do have other kinds of testimony. >> in some cases we could see. in the end can we say what he was thinking? probably not. his most elegant and incredible. the other thing about not being too clear next to storytelling. he is famously told stories. people would walk away scratching their heads. as a great when i tell in my book. he answered with with a story about two guys trying to cross a river. he scratching his head. >> these stories were parables. lincolnparables. lincoln group reading the bible and treating aesop's fables. those are parables. they carry meaning sometimes is obscure. youobscure. you can deconstruct and figure out what he was driving at. >> i'm kind of surprised. the history of a growing up very much as you described, the civil war change the nation and things got better , but what surprises me is how much of the civil war is unresolved. we moved situations, but a lot of things have not changed even as someone like justice robert said it is all over and perfectly obvious that it is not. and that has happened several times, in the 20s with birth of a nation. so i am surprised things have changed. they have not changed as much. i thought they had. >> i think history is aa story of two steps forward and one step back. maybe three some sort of two steps back. we were talking earlier about reconstruction. blacks in southern states formed the majority. a lot of them were elected to high office. congressman, united states senator, lieutenant governor and so on. the courts enforced the 14th14th and 15th amendments for several years but then there was a reaction. we can leap forward skipping over a lot to the 1960s and 70s. a great deal of progress. as you suggest of course there is one step backwards again, so history is not necessarily a straight line. there are ups and downs, fluctuations, and that is what the story is all about, the civil war and reconstruction tab key be considered as part of the unit are a major punctuation.in the process. you probably rememberyou probably remember as i do that the 1960s were often called the 2nd reconstruction. another major punctuation point in the history of civil rights, and we will continue to see that happen i think. >> i will offer two quotes, liberty is a slow fruit. i use that is the epigraph. think of martin luther king spoke of the ark of the moral universe. it is long, but it bends toward justice. seeing the progress and growth. it is important to acknowledge that there has been incredible change over time. it is not linear, and it moves in different directions, and it does not happen on its own. >> thank you both and thank you both most of all for telling the truth. i do want to applaud the united states service for all of its work during the commemoration of assessment tenniel. i have been all over this country and the belief you were at the one in norfolk state of the kick off in virginia and thank you so much for telling governor mcdonald that slavery was everything about the civil war. he came to apologize. we were responsible for that. i just returned. they were there for the ending of the civil war because that is where the shot was fired. it was an outstanding day of learning and growing and developing. for the 1st time the truth has come out about the meaning of the civil war and how indeed it shapes this nation, and i thank you for that. i do so also because i am a descendent of people who were enslaved on both sides of virginia. i too am glad that pres. lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation and saw the 13th amendment get through congress before he transitioned more importantly because of the inability of people to face the truth and live with what is truth and to learn from it, historians have been teaching us. this is why we are experiencing exactly what the previous question said, it continues to reverberate. emulate carry think it's great access. >> thank you for your comments. >> when i we will say is this what is dramatic to me about politics in general the sound doctrinaire ever justified positions have become. the thing about lincoln's politician is a change his mind. his mind. he worked with all sides of the aisle. the split between andrew johnson and the radical public i don't think it would've affect that is the kind of flexibility and understanding. don't burrow into the particular aeruginosa five position thank you. >> attribute to the united states. >> wonderful. >> thank you very much. >> i'm a member of the lincoln group of dc having a symposium this saturday a legacy of lincoln in the civil war in my question goes back to those less weeks of lincoln's life. lincoln at a meeting with grant and sherman and adm. porter. later sherman and his 1st surrender terms to johnson says i we will allow the confederate government of north carolina to remain in power in the later said i thought i was doing what lincoln said i should do. what do you think about sherman's interpretation and what lincoln really was talking about. >> i mean, i think i understand what sherman was talking about. lincoln and jim quoted. there is a bizarre moment in those last days before he hears appomattox is having a discussion abouta discussion about virginia allowing virginia legislature to come back in order to appeal the ordinance of secession. nobody knows exactly how to proceed. that's the point. in the aftermath of lincoln's assassination sherman's agreement is immediately countermanded. grant goes down they're and we move toward down they're and we move toward a very different reconstruction policy. keep in mind he had made short during the war the several states the most successful of which was louisiana, they had voted, they had adopted a new state constitution, abolish slavery, elected representatives. wanted to get them back in as quickly as possible. in that sense those times the sherman offered perhaps they have helped produce that result. once lincoln's assassinated the idea, the conditions under which the states will readmit are completely shifted and changed. come december congress is going to reject all of those who have been elected and begin the process of reconstruction. remember, congress goes out of session in march. they are gone until december. one of the reasons why he gives a speech as the reasons why give speeches he figures of the six months to make the case to the people as to how reconstruction should take place. that was not to be. >> sherman misinterpreted what lincoln was saying. earlier lincoln had stanton send a dispatch to grant after lee had approached grant indirectly about maybe the generals getting together and hammering out the terms of piece. lincoln sent a message back to grant, make no political agreements on they know agreements with the enemy .-ellipsis for the surrender of his army. sherman never got the memo. granted and the terms had to do only with the surrender of the army. ultimately that is what sherman's terms after the rejection of the original. sherman misunderstood the conversations that they had had. to think that he could actually negotiate political terms, not just military terms with the enemy surrendering to him. if he had gotten a dispatch that lincoln had stanton sent to grant i think you would not have done what he did because it was a political agreement as well as a military agreement and that was a no-no. >> i havei have a question about rand redistributions of the friedman and speaking of sherman, his famous 40 acres and a mule, was there ever any feasible political viability? obviously the radical republicans felt that and johnson spouted off about how he was going to break down the planet. have lincoln ever spoke in a spoken word of the possibility? >> there have been conversations. the constitution says that there shall be no corruption -- the punishment for treason visits corruption of blood. you can tell this hit the property as a punishment for treason but you cannot prevent the children from inheriting property and that was aa powerful roadblock to confiscation of land in the redistribution of land. the constitutional prohibition against what they called corruption of blood because that had frequently been done in the middle ages. you here it of the opposition by taking away their lands and this inheriting all affairs. that can be done under the american constitution. i was a powerful roadblock to confiscation of land. >> even if there is no will to do it. the price the confederates will pay. if the same time there was recognition of the importance of land. in terms of settling freeman on abandoned lands the kind of attempts to do that yes, but not to the point up with the radical republicans hoped for. >> i was just wondering if you could give a brief take on the pathology of the lost cause and seems to persist in the south. do you see it as more piece of homeless commemoration or something that is more damaging possibly to the truth that we could have learned from this. >> well, you raise a long and complicated issue that we probably could spend aa long time on and don't have a long time spend. i do not think that it is necessarily harmless. much of it, for example, in recent years has focused around the symbol of the confederate battle flag. one might say that heritage, not hate. heritage is not -- heritages harmless, hate is harmful, but the confederate battle flag has been used as an inspiration for eight no question. and so it depends on the circumstances on the context whether the so-called myth of the lost cause, the confederacy was a legitimate nation, legitimate cause but never proved wrong. the flag is a noble symbol of that. that canthat can be harmless or harmful depending on the context of the circumstances over the past hundred and 50 years i think it's been both the problem when alexander stephens gave a speech, it becomes a problem tear vision of america post- civil war. not just about symbols such as the confederate flag but about your understanding

Related Keywords

Mexico , United States , Mesa County , Colorado , Louisiana , Denmark , New Jersey , North Carolina , Norfolk , Virginia , Cuba , Richmond , United Kingdom , Britain , America , American , John Wilkes , Alexander Stephens , George Mcclellan , Evan Thomas , Martin Luther King , Andrew Johnson , Dan Sullivan , Howard Friedman , Mason Dixon , Charles Francis Adams , John Quincy Adams , Abraham Lincoln , Robert Lee , Thaddeus Stevens , James Mcpherson , Joseph Elliott , Robert Bork , John Adams ,