the civil war. she dr. appomattox, virginia -- talked about appomattox, virginia. this was recorded at the busy them of the appomattox. it is about four to five minutes. just 45 minutes. elizabeth varon: thank you for that very, very kind introduction. grant e. lee surrender to and is a familiar tableau. they met in the house of william mclean in the hamlet appomattox courthouse. grant dressed casually in a much tattered uniform, represented the hardscrabble farmers and .age earners after awkwardly extending pleasantries about their service in the mexican war, they agreed to surrender terms that effectively ended the civil war. grant set free the concord soldiers of north virginia on their honor. to promised they would never again take up arms against the united states. the mega-minty in this hour -- magnanimity in this hour united the north and south and provided the way for a world power of america. this casts the surrender as a moment of feeling that transcended policy. today, i will tell you an altogether different appomattox story and suggest that what happened here on april 9, 1865, is even more significant than we realized. the surrender was an inherently political moment that would set the terms of an unfolding debate about the meaning of war. lee and grant you this, so each -- knew this to stay out stake out a position. lee said it was honorable terms for his blameless men and contingent on the north's good behavior areas this was one of might overwrite. in grants view, this was not a surrender. he could say he uttered them powerless. he is terms were designed to effect the confederate submission for atonement. for grant, union victory was one of right over wrong. these competing visions would exert a profound influence over postwar politics, and yet, grant and lee did not craft these in isolation. as this drama unfolded, the countrymen and women crowded the scene and surrounded with their own aspirations and dreams. these dreams included the dream of freedom itself. in the eyes of african-american soldiers and former slaves, more than the union had indicated that april day, lee's surrender was for them. it was a promise finally fulfilled. as opposed to the surrender of restoration, the confederate interpretation, vindication, the victors shape took place on april 9, 19 -- 1865. -- reveals the depth of the bitterness and also the heated division within each side north and south. we will begin with the confederate interpretation. on april 8, 1865, lee tendered a grant that the confederate cause was hopeless and it was time to capitulate. he wrote, " i do not think the time has risen reason to surrender, but if restoration of peace should be the sole object, i desire that your objects lead to that end. as far as your proposal may tend to the restoration of peace, i shall be pleased to meet you." using the word of restoration twice, he began to elaborate his vision of an honorable peace. ?hat did he mean by restoration it was a famous theme of the northern democrats that deplored the lincoln ministration -- of the war.on's way they wanted to return the union to the way it was. lee had hoped, in vain, the confederate victories would swell this chorus of northern dissent and bring them to the negotiating table. his own understanding was a mistake from the northern democrats. it was rooted in his family culture and that of his native virginia. like other virginians with an elite but line -- bloodline, he was steeped in the early days of the republic. they took it for granted that virginia would be the leader and it was a proprietary pride in the union. fort lee, this would restore peace to the south, prosperity and influence, the halcyon days of imagined past from the principles of the virginian founders. from april 16 -- 1865 on, this was his political keyword there he of we see it pop up again and again in the postwar correspondence. six months after the surrender, he wrote to his friend matthew fontaine maury. "along long with the happiness of the people secure. may the god save us from destruction and mr. us just restore us to the bright hope o the past." this was a fundamentally backward view. this was promise on nostalgia and that the case was his army blameless. he wrote this farewell address. years, theafter four army of virginia has been forced to compel to overwhelming numbers and resources." confederate troops were sent fast to the last, even to this hour. his address take on an iconic status. it had profound influence over his starting troops. the apartment -- the army seemed vast. for white southerners, the overwhelming resources was a sort of code. with this ideology and the confederate creed, numbers conjured up mercenaries and hirelings coerced into service and having no real state in the fight. resources hundred up images of northern factories and cities which exploited underclass and turned up material of war at the behest of the capital. they had seen the burgeoning wealth and population of the north as an indictment against northern society, social instability, and of session with the bottom line. -- of session with the bottom line. theas part and parcel of same indictment of the north. defenders of the southern way of life had the claim that southern men were accustomed to mastery and rural ways were made of sterner stuff than northern wage slaves. lee was aware of this. implying that union troops had not been equal to southern ones, his farewell address made a political statement. by denying the legitimacy of the north's military victory, confederates good deny the right to impose its will over the defeated south. here in appomattox, lee who got a second front, to cast terms in the best possible way. "for -- hoping that the istorious federals, he said confederate should be issued a printed certificate signed by union officers as proof that the soldier came under the settlement of april 9. grant assented to thi request. in keeping with the surrender terms, the certificate vouched that if a soldier observed the laws, he would not be disturbed. union men thought this would remind confederates of the obligations intended on their status of parole prisoners of war. but the confederates emphasized the will not be disturbed clause. that represented the promise that honorable men would not be treated dishonorably. in the confederate interpretation, this imposed conditions on the north. april 29, 1855 interview with the new york herald, lee argued that provincial policies were adopted by the republican administration. southerners risk -- would consider the terms and reits you the fight -- restart the fight. lee defended the lenient policy of andrew johnson, which brought confederates back to power, and cautions that the north must be restrained. that was the best way, he said, for northerners to regain the good opinion of the south. the main point is this. lee has a meditation -- has a reputation in the moderate counsel for defeat. he in the postwar period, was not a symbol of submission. instead, unmeasured pride. seen as the a enactment of his superiority to grant. this circulated through confederate newspapers. in late april 1865, a report in which lee offers grant his sword but grant refuses to take it. according to the paper account, grant says, generally, take that sword. you have won it your gallantry. you have not been whipped. i cannot take a token from such a man. of course he never said such a thing, but this was incredible to southerners that it might overwrite interpretation. emma holmes wrote of this that union officers cheered for lee as he left the mclean house, and they do not utter insulting words to the defeated rebels. why were the yankees so reticent and even submissive? she explained to they feared the lion even chained, lee, the lion. theye year after the war, not only invoked to the overwhelming -- overwhelming numbers and that sentiment of the farewell address, they also invoked the appomattox terms and the will not be disturbed clause as a shield against social change and a weapon in the looming battle over black civil rights. efforts to give the free people a measure of equality and opportunity and restriction rignet by confederate protests were met by-- confederate protests that it was leaving the appomattox agenda. confederates believed lee had drawn a line in the sand at appomattox. a poet put it this way. urging southerners to model their behavior on that of lee, she wrote that lee had "not stooped his grandly proud head one hair." confederates would observe the parole terms, but more than this , and honorable enemy should not desire. it is idle to force the confederates to say and feel they were wrong. from the start, this view of things was resoundingly rejected by u.s. grant. it was precisely in admission to wrongdoing and a change of heart that he saw from his defeated foes. the restoration held no charm for that union general. grant, and addressing his support for lincoln in the 1864 election, had rejected this equation of peace with restoration, as turning back of the clock. he associated this language as with democrats. it was the sector of restoration to the south and slaves already freed. he also rejected the notion he had in any sense negotiated with lee at appomattox. he said he had all the cards. he thought the meeting of the surrender terms to be unmistakable. he said, "i never said this gave the prisoners any rights whatsoever. i thought it was entirely a matter of congress which i had no control. i had a right to stipulate the surrender on terms which protected the confederates' lives." these terms rested on military calculations, grant felt certain. they thought all the rebels in the field would surrender, and quit bushwhacking in the continuation of the war. men free.ot set lee's they were prisoners of war. freedom was contingent on their good behavior. ofrender was for grant indication on many levels. restoration is lee's keyword. vindication is grant's. many people had attributed to the form of lee almost super human qualities. as grant but in his memoirs. he knew all along the rebel was mortal and the surrender vindicated grant in that knowledge. moreover, he had long been sung by the charge of the copy had -- copperhead that he was a merciless butcher. contempt forguised these antiwar copperheads. he shows the mantle of butcher would fall from his shoulders at last. more than anything, the t's eyesr in the gran was the triumph of the new union. the founders belief in the perpetual union, the citizen soldiers representing democracy against the conscripts of dukes and autocratic society. now the way was open for the union to seem moral and material progress. conservatives to be taken out of their subservient class. the lenient surrender terms would hasten the political conversion of the defeated confederates to create a democratic self-government and freedom. did nott not believe -- believe lee and his men to be blameless. he considered it a crime, but he is believed also that every sinner must have a chance of atonement. his mercy began with design to affect that atonement. he made no concession to the confederates or copperheads in his magnanimous terms. his generosity was like a conquering victory, total. this right over wrong proved just as resident and enduring among northerners as lee's interpretation did among white southerners. among those to embrace grant were abolitionists and republicans. part of my book shows that americans embrace magnanimity but embraced it with different meanings. it was at times of the time that radicals, abolitionists and radical republicans were intent on vengeance against the south, but records suggest otherwise. saideditor horace greeley this was needed to achieve a sacred purpose, to help the south to emancipation. the north saw this magnanimity as an emblem of their moral authority. it was a more humane type based on slavery. i want as many rebels as possible to see the south rejuvenated and transformed by the influence of free labor. this was horace greeley. they want to bear witness to the unfolding social revolution. this is have greeley saw things. wese who embrace grant said don't want to inflict further punishment, we want you to change. confederates responded the demand for change was a form of punishment. this content did not simply picked the south against the north or even the confederacy against the union. instead, it pitted those in favor of thoroughgoing transformation of the south to those who rejected it. we have divisions within each society. the north had their own rivals of lincoln to create this as a mandate. they rivaled -- rally behind the confederates interpretation. the copperhead newspaper insisted southerners were equal to the north. the confederacy was subdued by overwhelming numbers. heres lee's interpretation lot, stock, and barrel. the conveyor -- confederacy really behind grant and reveled in the fact that they had brought lee to heal. -- heel. no american talk more keenly or assertively than the surrender mark to the new era of african-americans. her them, union victory vindicated black freedom and social justice. they had been liberators and the liberated. ofthe last crash -- clash grant and lee, the army tried on the morning of april 9 to break free of it federal trap, only to soldiers in blue. when it heard of lee's capitulation, the exultation new no balance. they embraced each other with exuberant joy. the black regiments at appomattox numbered 2000 in all were a microcosm of black life in america. they included x slaves trained in kentucky and others at camp william penn. they were leaders in the postwar era like george washington williams and the baptist editor william j simmons, a journalistic mentor to ida b wells. for all of these soldiers regardless of background, their presence on the battlefield was the culmination of a long struggle. the federal army had initially turned away like volunteers, claiming african-american men did not possess patriotism and courage. but they continued. when they finally got their chance to fight, they proved with dozens of engagements. those at appomattox had seen considerable action. there was a bloody initiation of combat in florida and the overland campaign in virginia and the siege of petersburg. the internet city in triumph when it fell on april 2. african-american soldiers were keenly aware that even after all of this proof of courage, their march to equality could still be turned back so long as powerful confederate armies were still in the field. took soldiers were aware that many white northerners saw this as an experiment, testing blacks for citizenship. many thought this would fail. not surprising giving this context, black soldiers seize on the critical role of lee's surrender as a vindication. "we the colored soldiers have run -- one hour rights by loyalty and bravery. ." another reporter reveled in the fact that they had supported the campaign that gave lee's forces a trophy to the union army, as he put it. they share the conviction that decisive.ad been and the cavalry repented a scene for his mother and sister. the morning of the nine came. the were pushed back rapidly to the station, the boys were falling. why was it that victory was so near? a dark column was seen coming down at quicktime. what a relief on the awful suspense? what cared we of the race of those men so long as they brought relief to the -- us? we suck original or black faces. -- we saw courage in their black faces. suggests thatnce slaves saw appomattox as a freedom day. for many it was the very moment of emancipation. although lincoln's emancipation had long since been passed. virginia slaves were the first to hear the tidings of the surrender and to fathom the significance of the event. not just booker t. washington with his classic book, when the war closed, freedom came to southwestern virginia. they read the emancipation proclamation and this surrender that brought long-awaited deliverance. in the 20th century, african-americans who had been slaves, echoed such published reminiscences. fannie barry remembers slaves post into spontaneous song when they learned the white flag had been raised. they knew they were free. as news of the surrender traveled through the south, slaves are away from the triumphs in the end of their enslavement. lineup, theyour status quo of slavery cap right since thead emancipation proclamation. it was only when generally surrendered that -- general lee surrendered that we felt we were free. eliza washington told her interviewer, these are interviews conducted by the federal writers project in the 1930's, she told her first thing ithe remember is living with my mother in arkansas about 1866. i know it was 1866 because that was the year after the surrender, and we know the surrender was in 1865. " just as appomattox continued in many slaves memories, it was put on the calendar. festivities begin in southern virginia as early as 1866. blacks on the north carolina border commemorated this day because they said if we had not been beaten, the emancipation proclamation would have been to no avail. this would longer made a point of pride with the black community. george washington williams himself a veteran of the appomattox campaign, noted in his history of the negro race published in 1853 that in the last hour of the slaveholders rebellion, the brilliant site of black troops ensured victory of the union. the fact that they had defeated lee like a symbolic meaning to surrender. lee and north virginia typified the slaveholding these and racial superiority. according to thomas morris chester, this capitulation was especially sweet because it was rebuked to the first families of virginia. in short, men such as williams and chester made and sustained to the bold claim that in army,ing lee's african-american troops had dealt a deathblow, including to slavery itself. not only did the union victory emanate from this superior virtue, but also like troops simple fight that virtue. exemplified that virtue. there is a civil rights message scribbled into the terms, promising appomattox. this depicted a free people and black soldiers in particular, agents of healing. so the history of the war of the rebellion praise black soldiers for treating the vanquished confederates with quiet dignity and christian humility. he wrote, "after the confederate army had been paroled, they divided the rations with the late enemy and welcomed them to their camp fires on the march back to petersburg. the sweet gospel of forgiveness was expressed in their conversations with x soldiers. it was magnanimity never before witnessed." as he saw it, this was the exercise of moral authority, conscious effort has possible of grant's on clemency. -- own time and see. in the year after the surrender, each of these interpretations i have outlined, vindication and incorporatecame to an argument about the last promise of appomattox. the adherence of the interpretation argued the political opponent had betrayed the true spirit of man grant's magnanimity. they invested in very different meanings. radicald his followers, republicans were the archbishop your's of the appomattox covenant. black suffrage and political representation, that was against the promise that southern of -- southerners would not be deserved. grant, andrew johnson was the breaking of the covenant for capitulating to lee. the blindness of the southern people to their own interest, grant had adapted. graduallyrite, "i worked up to the point where i savored enfranchisement for americans -- african-americans. this would be the only way they could control the nation and are entitled to do so." grant was disappointed by it lee's refusal to give the victors there do. due. eir he said lee was behaving badly and quoted forced acquiescence so grudging and pernicious and its effect as to hardly be realized. grant denigrated this as a show of force and they resisted change in the name of restoration. he would have to enter the political arena to begin the --k he started april 9, 1855 65. sides, all ofoth these people left a promise at the appomattox moment let fate of unfulfilled. unfulfilled. it does not begin to capture this tom price legacy of appomattox -- complex legacy of appomattox. it is so important that people come here and walk the national park and visit this museum and try to understand the artifacts so that we can recover and appreciate what this moment era ofn the turbulent the end of the civil war, thank you. [applause] thank you. i am happy to take any questions that people have them. -- if people have them. wait, i know i can count on you. yes, sir. >> a lot of people say regardless of what happened on april 9, everything changed with lincoln's assassination. what changed and what didn't change because of lincoln's assassination? elizabeth varon: a great question. anyone that knows civil war literature if the impression from books on shelves and libraries and bookstores that this assassination eclipses the surrender. there are scores of books on the assassination, and very few on the surrender. there has been an assumption that has gone along that at that moment, the northern magnanimity evaporates and there are calls for vengeance, the drown outs of the calls for magnanimity. i found something different. northerners are embittered by the assassination, and we do see calls for vengeance against those who are traded it -- who perpetrated it, but we see a kind of call and response. some northerners say we have been too lenient, lincoln would have been too lenient, grant was too lenient. now johnson, the initially believed, will be an enforcer of restoration and vengeance. johnson is the right man to sort of correct our course. but we suggest as many people say, upholding the notion of magnanimity and that it confers moral authority on the north, a moral superiority. we see as many northerners saying, sticking with the argument. let's not make arguments. lincoln wanted a piece characterized by any of and lenience -- characterized by lenience. so i find those interpretive lines whole. there is a moment of uncertainty, but to a surprising .egree, they hold the other thing i found is that we know john wilkes booth is in the audience went lincoln gave his last famous speech with you jesters -- where he jesters he might accept black suffrage. booth at this moment says i am going to run lincoln through, this is a lashing out against the possibility of lack civil rights and all of that is true. but americans at the time, as they received the news of his assassination, didn't know about this booth subplot. so this assassination was a response to the surrender that booth had been infuriated by the south's defeat, and then he was lashing out to rob lincoln of his fruits of victory. so the context for the assassination in the eyes of almost all northerners, we have lost sight of that. the connection between the surrender and the assassination. they believe booth was trying to undo the union victory at that moment. any other questions? comments? sure. appomattox and all those places in the nation remain. do you want to remain -- revive that in some way? having to put on a billboard? elizabeth varon: the myth of a gentleman's agreement between grant and lee is a compelling one, and it doesn't have merit. these two men, it was a great achievement for them to end the war. i would accuse a parenthetically sometimes people these days will argue, talk about a long civil war. appomattox did not really end -- effectively, it does. it stops the massive bloodletting. there is surrender to come and armies in the field. what happens after appomattox will not revive the confederates. at appomattox. so it is the effective end of the civil war, and it was a great achievement for the men to end the war. this notion about an gentleman's the very exists from start, and even some of these editors like greeley are arguing about the terms. ir at america ended its civil war in a way no country has done so before. s agreement, this is trying to say america is different. across the spectrum, that impulse of self-congratulation is present. even people in the next breath will argue about what the terms really meant. so my argument won't fit clearly on a billboard. i don't think one has to throw out the old billboard so much as remember the surrender was controversial. how could it not be? 700,000 men had lost their lives. it was the road to truth and reconciliation -- it was a very difficult one. to appreciate the surrender for those who looked at lee and grant, they were two of the most prestigious men in the country after lincoln. after lincoln dies, the two most prestigious men. southerners and northerners looked at them to present their respective causes, how so many people lay down their lives in peace as in war. they did not want to be lambs in defeat. they saw them as lions, and that is what they would continue to be. lee and grant our enemies in the year after the war as they had been during the war. how could it be otherwise? it does not bring the war to a close, but it reminds us that down to the clause, we don't want to be disturbed, and if you disturb us, you have broken the covenant. these terms are controversial. sometimes what people are trying to debunk, they say something you thought great or important is not as great or important is not like you thought. my purpose is the opposite. this is even more important because of how this set the terms for an unfolding debate that we have appreciated. yeah? >> before the war and even after the war -- is this a common american practice? , andve a cornerstone event that it gets diminished in some way because political factions began to claim pieces of it? and make it their own? elizabeth varon: yes. >> and the momentum created by the event itself. elizabeth varon: the most surprising discovery of all was how, with what relish, the antirepublican democrats, the copperheads, adopted this confederate perspective on things. it just shows you have the instant impulse to politicize this stuff. it was never a moment which northerners en masse celebrate grant's victory and never a moment when southerners en masse celebrate lee's defeat. this have to start with the press. the campaigns, the meeting in the mclean house, the farewell address. i show what happens when the news hit the wires and lands in northern cities and communities and lands in southern cities and communities. the impulse in the news is instantaneous for each side, political rivals try to use it to political advantage. it happens instantly and shows the divisions within each society and not just between them. one more? aboutt you were saying the good camaraderie between the u.s. troops and the confederate troops, everyone sitting down and having meals, speaking with each other -- elizabeth varon: that did not. it postwarquote from race history by george washington williams. the context for these, african-americans cling to the idea that surrender is a social moment. it is a moment in which they are in the victors' circle, dispensing magnanimity. the context for that is a long-standing chart that goes as far back as we can trace to the days of slavery. if you have emancipation, you will have race war and reprisals. for williams to highlight, i think his account is so wishful. it served a political purpose for him to highlight the possibility of racial reconciliation and say that appomattox could symbolize racial reconciliation. it was an answer to say if there is union victory, there will be social chaos, there will be race war. he wanted to ally himself with wrongness of desk the progress of magnanimity. and they offered character narratives -- counter narratives of if you had freedom and union victory. i want to discuss the colored troops and their participation on april 9, 1865. there were six regiments [indiscernible] elizabeth varon: yeah, that is right. recall -- do you recall [indiscernible] elizabeth varon: i don't have a figure there. this was a moment and which essentially, the way, the way it is described by sheridan and others, lee and his men thought they might have achieved a breakthrough moment by scattering the union cavalry. but when they see the infantry en masse, they realized their host for breakthrough had failed. so it is the presence of the african-american troops and the site of union reinforcement that starts them to go up. so it would be a sort of epigram in a african-american postwar discourse that black troops fire the last shots at least's -- lee's army, which is technically not true, but it served a purpose. saying we are in the victors' circle, and we helped to bring to heel this army that symbolizes a very regime of slavery and of the planter elite . so to get back to john's question, part of what i am arguing is literally what happens is fast. i try to talk about the campaign, but i am trying to argue that appomattox the symbol is a much richer symbol than we realize. it wasn't just a symbol of victory and defeat. it was a symbol of vindication and restoration and liberation. all of those levels. -- [indiscernible] elizabeth varon: it was the eighth, 116th, 27th, the 145th -- it is all in the book. and the eight 41st, 116. elizabeth varon: one other regiment waiting in the wing. one of the more interesting discoveries for me is how many men were in those -- before the officers and armors became prominent race leaders and reported back to the service very proudly. george washington wallace is one of the most important african-americans in this postwar period, and he considered important a key moment in his life that simmons and others would become prominent political leaders. that is a story that in a way, this is what brought me to the project i have been interested in leeann grant are a very long time. grant for a very long time. i would give a talk on june 16 on emancipation in texas where union forces arrived and announce to texas slaves that they are free. i was doing research on this, which i knew little about. i kept running across references to appomattox as a freedom day for african-americans up into the 1930's. this symbolic importance of this place for african-americans persists for a very long time, sometimes in the form of epigrams. covering this spectrum of african-american military service. it is misplaced by the world wars and someone, but it really lingers as a moment of symbolic importance. it goes beyond really things like casualties and who fired the last shot. >> your able to incorporate [indiscernible] >> thank you very much. elizabeth varon: oh, my pleasure. [applause] those of you would have seen the case [indiscernible] words.ake liz eat her [laughter] [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. 2016] >> on history bookshelf, here from the country's best-known american history writers of the past decade every saturday at 4:00 p.m. eastern. and you can watch any of our programs at any time when you visit our website c-span.org/history. you are watching "american history tv," all weekend every weekend on c-span3. citizens have got to feel that their vote matters, that their voice matters, and whether they can not spare a single cent to help a person running for office or whether they can write a big check. because their concerns, their struggles will be listened to and followed up on. anduncer: sunday night on q a, tammy baldwin talks about her political history. helpedthe senior shepherd the change whereby, whereby senators were not appointed by the legislatures but demanded elections. so, i guess, i don't know if it was the first, but the idea that it was going to be the party bosses who made the decision of who the nominees were in smoke-filled back rooms but rather the people, who were going to get a chance to vote in free and fair elections. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. this weekend on road to the white house rewind, we look back to the 1992 democratic and republican conventions. here is a preview. >> the thing that makes me angry is about what has gone wrong in the last four years has that our government has lost college -- tight with politicians. i am tired of it. [applause] i was raised to believe the american dream was built on rewarding hard work. but we have seen the folks in washington turn the american ethics on its head. for too long, those who fight by the rules and keep the faith has gotten shattered. and those will cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded. people are working harder than ever, spending less time with their children, working nights and weekends at their job incident going to pta and little league or scouts. and there incomes are still going down. [applause] still going up, and their costs for health care, housing, and education are going through the roof. meanwhile, more and more of our best people are falling into poverty even though they work 40 hours a week. [applause] our people are pleading for change. but government is in the way. it has been hijacked -- by private interests. it is forgotten who saves the bill around here. it has taken your money and given you less in return. we have got to go beyond the brain-dead politics in washington and get our people the kind of government they deserve, a government that works for them. [applause] >> we want bill, we want bill. bill clinton: a president ought to be a powerful force for progress, but right now, i know how president lincoln felt in general mcclellan was attacked in the civil war. he asked him, if you are not going to use your army, may i borrow it? [applause] bush, ifsay, george you won't use your power to help america, step aside, i will. [applause] >> what's more from the 1992 democratic and republican conventions sunday at 10:00 eastern on the weekly series "road to the white house rewind" only on c-span3. >> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of united states. [applause] ♪ >> up next on "american history tv," a discussion about the role of music in the anti-vietnam war movement with political singer-songwriters country joe mcdonald and peter yarrow. during the vietnam war, mcdonald performed with country joe and the fish and yarrow was a member , of peter, paul and mary. this discussion is part of a three-day conversation at the lbj library in austin, texas, titled "the vietnam war summit." this 50-minute program begins with a performance by joe mcdonald and ends with several songs by peter yar