if you wake up in the morning and believe that, you're probably not going to accomplish anything whether you're a man or a woman. .. they're not empowering all with in. they want to make an alliance

with the left wing so it is the female left that has become so powerful when it aligns itself with the obama administration. when the feminist movement got underway in the late 60s and 70s they called themselves not feminism. they called themselves the women's liberation movement. you have to ask what did they want to be liberated from? they wanted to be liberated from home the digital husband, family and children. so you find encouraging women to be independent of men. that is why they were big supporters of divorce and looked upon marriage as a very confining role in life. gloria steinem said what a woman gets married she becomes a semi nonperson.

betty freedman said the life of a wife and mother was living in a comfortable concentration camp. that was their attitude. the social degradation of women was a major goal of the feminist movement and it wasn't -- they were really not using the argument that it takes two incomes to support the family. that is not why they wanted to get her out of the home. they wanted to get her out of the home of for economic reasons but for social and cultural reasons because they tried to tell women you are just a parasite, your life is not accomplishing anything. the only way to have fulfillment is to be independent of men and have your own career. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> now from the and apple was book panel ace panel on civil

war perspectives. >> please take your seats and welcome. my name is joseph glatthaar. i am the distinguished professor at the university of north carolina chapel hill and this is the panel called civil war perspectives. today we have two outstanding folks. the first, the new york times -- "the new york times complete civil war 1861-1865" compiled and edited by craig symonds and harold holzer. and we have "andrew johnson," a presidential biography by annette gordon-reed. one would think initial these books don't have that much in common but in fact as i read through them it became apparent to me they had an enormous amount in common. andrew johnson was a southern unionists and the war was over

the union. furthermore there are huge constitutional issues. huge raise issues in both books so they dovetail nicely. let me introduce our authors and the authors will speak and then we will have a question and answer session. hopefully there will be lots of times for questions and answers and i expect you to participate. when we begin i remind you this is not a moment for you to give speeches, it is time for you to ask questions and for the authors to answer. first, harold holzer has written or edited several dozen books. he is by my standards perhaps the best authority on abraham lincoln in the world. i recently had the opportunity to use one of his books in my undergraduate class with great success. harold has received the national humanities metal and he is senior vice president for external affairs at the

metropolitan museum of art. his associate, craig symonds is professor emeritus of the u.s. naval academy and former naval officer. he is a very famous on these grounds because his wife worked here for many years and craig was a volunteer cross country coach. my favorite of all his books is lincoln and his admirals' which i am going to use in the fall semester for my class. it won the lincoln prize which is exceedingly prestigious in the field of the civil war. he also has written the best biography of joseph johnson and patrick clayborn. our third participant is annette gordon-reed who received her law degree from harvard and had a youthful fascination with thomas jefferson. she has written several books on

sally hammons and her third major book is andrew johnson. annette gordon-reed has a string of awards that would occupy the bulk of our sessions so i can't quite do it. she is a professor of history and law and recipient of the national book award, the pulitzer prize, macarthur genius award, on and on and on. an extraordinarily accomplished individual. let me start by passing the microphone to craig symonds. >> harold is going to start off. >> with all of our rehearsals. >> i will go through the chronology of the way we have been presenting our book, "the new york times complete civil war 1861-1865". there is a confluence of fuse here that unites this panel. because the new york times cover all of the major figures of the

civil war era including senator and later vice president andrew johnson. we have to set the stage by saying it was not the same new york times that we know and either love or hate today. the new york times now relishes the idea that it publishes only the news fit to print in the 1850s and 60s. it printed all the news fit for electing republicans and supporting the union and later emancipation. this discussion also requires a giant leap of historical imagination, something akin to the kind of social media revolution that can start a real revolution. newspapers of the nineteenth century were busy fomenting passion and concern over major issues. they were specifically on one side of the slavery issue or the

other. they were pro republican or pro democratic. people measured their affiliation and loyalties by the newspapers they carry. in new york the for the middle just like in small towns, one republican and one democratic newspaper. new york was of course different because it was the publishing center of the world. in this atmosphere, publishers were often politicians as well. the chairman of the new york state republican party was a publisher. simon cameron. the governor senator from pennsylvania and later secretary of war in the first lincoln administration was a publisher. or they were politicians first and publishers later. new york as i say was different. almost 200 daily and weekly newspapers in new york city at

the start of the civil war. when craig and i were asked to focus on the new york times we took into account three major newspapers. the new york herald which is the most widely spread was the most conservative, pro democratic, and i emancipation. the new york tribune, famous for urging american young men to go west was the most progressive. they were urgently for emancipation earlier than abraham lincoln as it turned out was prepared to order it. in the middle was the new york times. its editor was a politician. harry raymond who founded it was the speaker of the new york state assembly. he decided to found a newspaper. this in new york gets gas because new yorkers imagine the current speaker of the assembly of owning the new york times so

it is a big leap of imagination. the times was clearly pro republican and anti slavery but their whole m o was to delay education, not excited asian. they wanted changes to be made in thessaly and painlessly. they were anti secession but not immediately pro emancipation. the times originally favored william seward for president of the united states in 1860. they were converted to admiration for lincoln after the cooper union address as joe mentioned a moment ago and were reliably and ardently pro lincoln in the 1860's election. in fact, i don't think anyone in any city to they can imagine this occurring from the print newspaper aside from television. the editor of the new york times campaigned across new york state

into the midwest for abraham lincoln. for one quick diversion, president bill clinton wrote the preface to our book and made what seems like an obvious point but a very interesting point that the analog of the fiercely partisan newspaper editors of the nineteenth century are the commentators on ms nbc and fox today. the only difference is the commentators on ms nbc and fox are not quite willing to go so far as to say i am a john boehner republican or barack obama democrats and president clinton's recommendation in his introduction was it might not be a good idea if they did. it would make things so much simpler and more direct. we have the editor of the time campaigning for lincoln and the assiduously covering lincoln during the election, editorializing for him every day

and in the secession crisis that followed his election covering lincoln every move even though he is not speaking. covering the floor of the senate and covering lincoln as he begins his long meandering inaugural journey that takes him into new york state and eventually into new york city. he had 20 correspondence with him on this journey. as many of you know when he approached the neighboring city of baltimore and he was advised by allan pinkerton and others to cancel his public schedule and go directly to washington being not a flying bird he had to go through baltimore so he did so at night and what arose from that as he did so wearing a disguise in a scottish cam and military cloak was actually the work of the correspondence of the imbedded correspondent of the new york times.

his name was joseph heller and and he had no reason that anyone can the deuce except he woke up one morning in harrisburg and said this is exciting. we are on the last leg of the journey. where is the president elect? and they said sorry, he is gone. you missed him so all these reporters who had traveled with lincoln all this time were left without a subject to cover and without news to report. it was a rather dicey situation. the times resumed its editorial support of lincoln in his conciliatory inaugural certainly after the attack on fort sumter nearly 150 years ago as we speak today at annapolis. and yet right after for its under and the patriotic exuberance it reported in new york city the new york times ran out of patience with abraham

lincoln certainly for the first and perhaps the only time in the succeeding four years. they wrote an editorial called wanted:a leader and lincoln was so upset by it he started a new file on his desk called phyllis articles and put this one in the file. to conceal the fact the administration so far has not met public expectation. tours carrying the country through the tremendous crisis which so rapidly and steadily selling down, the union will not only be severed but the country disgraced. in a crisis like this there is no policy so fatal as that of having no policy at all. lincoln pulled the editor to washington, took him aside and

put his arms around him and said you're absolutely right. i am so busy making a point that i don't have time to deal with this crisis. somehow lincoln's personal magnetism was enough to win the day or at least l.a. the antagonism and the times when don to reliably support lincoln throughout. after that at least publicly the editor of the new york times never left lincoln's side again and four years later when it was time to name the chairman of the republican national committee guess who got the job? henry raymond, publisher of the new york times. that is another relationship that would not exist. as we would like to insist there is a fire wall separating journalism from propaganda. at the dawn of the civil war there was only a very fine line.

the times walked it gingerly but they never failed the breathalyzer test of professionalism. their biases would not pass the smell test today but in 1861 their pro republicanism and emancipation is some, qualified it even then as all the news that is fit to print. that takes us to the war. >> that is great. we sit here today on the ninth of april, 2011. 150 years ago this week america was wary about what was going to happen at fort sumter and 146 years ago, today, ready lisa rented the army of northern virginia at appomattox so this is a very patient moment. we need to discuss what really was the most dramatic event in our national history and there have been thousands, tens of

thousands of books written about the american civil war. half were written by harold. but in doing this project it gave me -- the reason there are so many is there are so many facets of this experience that were investigating and useful to consider today in our own troubled times and in doing this project, i think i and my partners realize that reading of the war through the eyes of the newspaper and particularly the paper that was becoming the paper of record for the union, new york times gave yet another perspective on this because events were encountered not necessarily as they unfolded but as you read about them in the paper. today of course we have a wide variety of media sources to inform us what is going on in the world but newspapers were pretty much the only game in town in 1861 to 1865. and as harold mentioned they

tended to adopt a particular ideological point of view. but what happened during the civil war is not just transformative to the nation, not just transformative to the character of warfare. what with the advent and widespread use of the railroad and telegraph, armored ships of additional submarines, all the new technology that characterized civil war that sat on a ticking point between old-fashioned napoleonic wars and the horror of trench warfare in western france from 1915 to 1918 but in addition to that all so reinvented in a way the nation reported its war. the new york times the relatively new paper had to come up with almost a new way of reporting that war. there are several sources a newspaper could go to to provided readers with the information it craved. official reports, public documents were made available by the government or the people in

the field. these tended to be dry and worse for newspapers and competition one with another they tended to be late. if you waited for the government to put out an official bulletin, number killed and what the army did it would be of less interest than an eyewitness account and would also be a couple days after your arrival scooped you on the front page. newspapers began for the first time on a wide scale. at first henry raymond thought i can do this. setting aside his editorial responsibility he accompanied the union army of the battlefield in virginia along the banks of bull run creek and being a new yorker and knowing his readers will want to find out what is happening to new york units the company a new york unit. he was an embedded journalists. he said i am with 146 -- on the

right side of the road. he is seeing the battle from soldier's eye view. not this olympian height where he can see everything that is happening. that is his reporting. i can hear guns rumbling in the east. it is not all that helpful in terms of what is going on. it is all the reporters knew. it came because he came to get his story into the hands of a courier by 2:15 on the 20 first of july. in order to get to the telegraph in washington to be telegraphed and printed for the paper, at 2:15 he could report union troops are being successful. the enemy is fleeing for the field. the day is ours. half an hour later considered reinforcements arriving on the field turned that around completely and henry rain along

with most of the union army had to flee the field back of the road across bull run and back toward washington. he rode all the way to washington with a revised story in his hand and got to the military telegraph operator dusty and dirty and smelly, rushed in, i need a new story. the union army is defeated and a telegraph operator decided it was in the interest to send that story. this is why new unit--new york readers don't find out until july 26th what actually happened at bull run. here we have an innovation henry raymond decided his fields were over. he went back to new york to resume his editorial responsibilities. he began to hire dedicated professional war reporters who went into the field with the armies and with the army's

blessing and often without the army's blessing. there was a natural competition give-and-take between vote reporters and the generals that you still see a little bit of today. a couple of examples, since 1863 after ambrose burnside conducted in his failed offensive in the last weeks of 1862. he then tried a march around robert tv's army and it began to rain. the army got bogged down. burnside decided to boost their routes by issuing whiskey and the army was both drunk and bog down and it deteriorated into an absolute mess. became known to historians as the mud march. the reason is a new york times reporter sent back a story. burnside was helpless. they were bogged down and drunk. burnside wanted to have him arrested and shot.

here we have a first confrontation between generals in the field and the reporters who are there to watch what is going on. there is that tension that continues to exist throughout the war. sherman in particular was very in tolerant of reporters in his ranks. grant much more tolerant. there was an occasion in did 1864 campaign when grant was sitting by his headquarters and his general came and said we need to arrest williams went and who has issued a report in the new york times that says this and grant said i read his story. it is remarkably accurate. stories from the west took longer. one of the good things about reporting in the civil war is armies began dragging telegraph wire behind them as they move. the story is not quite in real time but a lot more immediate response than had been possible in many of america's previous

wars the news from the western theater and by that i mean anything west of the appalachians included if the vicksburg campaign had ago by steamer up river against the tide to illinois and then to new york by telegraph so that news of vicksburg and gettysburg which historians look at simultaneously arrive in new york ten days apart. the sequence of events is slightly changed in terms of the newspapers with and if you look at it through the history books. that is one of the insights that we got. the other in sight is how remarkably good the new york times reporters were. they were vivid, dramatic, occasionally worried. it was the day of dickens and they were paid by the inch. dickens was paid by the word. i will give one example in closing. the example comes from samuel wilkerson who was a new york times reporter. one of the better known n.y.

times reporters that was heading out to a little farm town in pennsylvania called gettysburg. he knew his son who served in a new york artillery battery was there too so one of the first things he did when he arrived on the second day of the battle was to find his son's unit. he found the sun had been on a little eminence just north of gettysburg, had been mortally wounded there, carried to a field hospital and abandoned in the field hospital when the union army retreated back through gettysburg on to the heights of cemetery hill and cemetery ridge. so wilkinson filed his report as a professional must do. i will read a brief -- is a very long report that we included in the report. who can write the history of a battle whose eyes are in move of

lee fastened on a central figure of a absorbing interest? the dead body of an eldest born, crushed by a shell in a position where a battery should never have been sent and abandoned to death in the building where surgeons dared not stay. but wilkinson did write the story and perhaps most poignant part of that is he happened to be in general need's headquarters building during the bombardment and advancing that has gone down in history as picket's charge and this is what he wrote. in the shadow cast by the county--tiny farmhouse which general meade made his headquarters for weary staff officers there was not one thing to the peacefulness of the scene the singing of a bird which had a nest in the peach tree within the tiny yard of the white wash cottage. in the midst of this a show

screamed over the house instantly followed by another and another. in a moment the air was filled with the most complete prelude to an infantry battle ever exhibited. every size and form of sheldon to british and american gunnery sweet and whistled over our ground. as many as 6 in a second, two burning over and around the headquarters made a very hellfire that amazed the oldest officers. they burst in the yard and next to the fence on both sides garnished with the hitch forces of aids -- one fell and then another. 16 led mangled before the fire ceased, fastened by their dangers. these. victims of a cool war touched all hearts. through the midst of storms,

screaming and exploding in shells and ambulance driven by its friendly conductor a full speed presented to wallace the marvelous spectacle of a horse going rapidly on three legs. then he describes pick it's charge very vividly and ends this way, my pen is heavy. oh you dad who are at gettysburg have baptized with your blood the second birth of freedom in america. interesting phrase. how you are to be envied. i rise from a grave whose wet clay i have passionately kissed and i look up and i see christ spanning this battlefield with his feet and reaching for heaven. his right hand opens the gates of paradise. with his left he beckons those mutilated, swollen bodies to ascend. it is altogether possible, even likely that lincoln read this

article. he read the new york times regularly. it was his party's paper and that phrase the new birth of freedom may have resonated when he went back in november to give his most famous address. so thank you. [applause] >> my facet of the story doesn't really come with the civil war. obviously andrew johnson was alive during the civil war. he was part of it. he was a military governor in tennessee and this time period. he was also a southern unionists, the only member of the senate who remained loyal to the union and for that reason he was known by his newspaper and very much liked by northern newspapers because of his stance. johnson's claim to fame other than appearing on modern-day rankings as one of the worst presidents, before this was

published it was the absolute worst. but he may have been considered one of the worst presidents but he was settling one of the most important presidents for what he did after the war was over. the aftermath of the war. of the things they're talking about. the country had to be put back together again. he was chosen as lincoln's running mate. we could talk a little bit about how that happened. i described it as mysterious. carroll thinks it is still mysterious. we can talk about this but surely he was in lincoln's eyes and the people who supported lincoln the right man for the job because he was symbolic anyway as a southerner who remained loyal to the union. he was the embodiment of the hope that one day the country could be put back together again. there were enormous hopes for have. following lincoln there were people who were lincoln admirers who had become exasperated with lincoln who thought johnson

might actually be better. it is hard to imagine that because lincoln is considered one of the best presidents and johnson is considered the worst. to go from best to worst in what terms there, but he dashed the hopes of many because he did not rise to the occasion. the thesis of my book is the story of anti johnson is the story of missed opportunities. for the country, for himself the leader of the list opportunity for great is for himself. most people think presidents have to have a war in order to be great. he came after the war but he had something that is certainly the moral equivalent of war, reconstruction. to try to figure out what was going to happen to african-americans who have been freed by the civil war and down in the south in a place where peace 0 -- people look upon them as their property or their property to be at some point in

the future. a great amount of hostility was unleashed after a war in the south against the freedmen. andrew johnson had the hostility towards african-americans. you think about the story and tell in the book of what it meant to have a person who was so personally hostile to african-americans is not something that was unusual. it was the currency of the time but he in particular had great amounts of animosity towards african-americans and yet he was in charge of figuring out how these were going to be brought into citizenship and he was quite recalcitrant. for he had come into office as a loyalist to the union. once he becomes president it is almost as if he reverts to vis other. the southerner in him comes

out-basically believe blacks should have political rights. he did not believe that. he believes america was the white man's government and it would remain a white man's government as long as he had anything to do about it. he comes into office. there were high hopes for him because he talked about punishing traders. when the war was going on he was giving speeches and being very harsh on southerner is saying trees and must be punished. so people in the south when you add to the fact that to them he was calling them traders so they hated him and feared him and when lincoln was killed, they thought he is going to be an avenger. he will be terrible to us and in fact for a while he did make the

setting randys and planter class come to him and ask personally for pardons but he cut that off at a certain point. people have wondered why he changed his tune on the planter class and why he was not so hostile to them. once he realized what the republicans wanted to do it was not just get rid of slavery and leave blacks in a position of serfdom or worse than serfdom that they wanted to transform the south. than he thought it was more important to stop them than to deal with this sort of old animosity and jealousy towards the planters and he began to oppose every single program the republicans put into place in order to bring blacks into citizenship and for the longest time most republicans held out hope they could work with him. it was really the radical republicans that term described a small group of people who were

never in control of a party. they kept trying to work with johnson and he would not be worked with. whatever they suggested he and vetoed bills, the freeman bureau's built literally was opposed to the fourteenth amendment. all these things. at some point people in congress felt they couldn't take it anymore and that brought about the impeachment process. the only time--president clinton wrote the forward. interesting if he could have provided -- the only other president in peach, clinton and johnson. for johnson it really was nothing to be done. if they passed a law he would veto it. finally they had enough and decided to get rid of him. they were not successful.

he was in impeached but save from conviction and removal from office by one vote and he continued as a sort of lame duck as the world passed him by. people have said to me that he did bring something good. as a result of his recalcitrance we have the fourteenth amendment and that is true. that is the silver lining. but on the other hand if you think about -- i think about the missed opportunities in terms of land reform. he was against land reform. think what the lives of african-americans would have been like, how different they would have been if the freemen could have had farmers to grow their own food, to become independent, sort of delay of black advancement as far as economic prosperity. this was a result of the things he did. i want to make plain that i

don't believe -- there is criticism of great man's history that one person is responsible for all the good things that happened. that is not true. nor is it true that any one person is responsible for all the bad things that happened. johnson is not totally responsible for this but johnson was president and in our system of government the president is symbolic leader. when the president doesn't lead it is a problem. we don't look to congress or the supreme court for leadership. you look to the person in the white house. it was tremendously important that he decided to throw the weight of his leadership power and capacity against the forces of reaction, people who did not want to transform american society and put us hundred years behind. so that is the story of johnson and his role in this particular era. >> thank you very much. [applause]

>> i would like to open the floor for questions. please wait until the microphone is given to you and meanwhile, while the microphone is going to this individual here i am going to oppose the first question using the moderator's prerogative. my question is henry raymond and andrew johnson were both rather close to abraham lincoln, indicated support for lincoln and lincoln's policies but in the aftermath of lincoln's death they seemed to be trey his policy and vision. why? >> just to go back to something annette gordon-reed said it is interesting to think of the transformation of johnson from the person expected to be an avenger. malval rights immediately they have killed him, the avenger takes his place in a poem called

good friday 1865. raymond was by his nature rather conservative republican. he was dragged kicking and screaming for emancipation convinced it is a war measure. he is not very progressive on race relations. raymond in the 1864 election in which he is lincoln's favorite cheerleader and head of the committee and chief fund-raiser also runs for congress from new york. he wins. as it happens he becomes one of johnson's key supporters in the united states congress. it actually spelled the end of raymond's influence as a leader in the press world even though johnson makes a come back in the united states senate raymond is done as the most influential editor in the united states.

>> do you want to address that? >> no. >> how different was the personal relationship between a prominent afro-american republican like frederick douglass with abraham lincoln and andrew johnson? >> i strike the book with frederick douglass and his first encounter with andrew johnson. and he sees andrew johnson across the room and johnson looks at him and a fleeting moment, he realizes that this is a man who had contempt for african-americans. what johnson realized, he does this face up and respond appropriately. but he says he saw -- the title of the chapter, the index of his heart and in that moment he could see this was a guy who was no friend of black people and it turned out to be -- turned out

to be the case. there was no relationship between the two of them at all. at one point he comes to the white house with a delegation of blacks and johnson is very hostile. he basically says black people, slaves and slave masters were in league with one another to keyboard white people down. you would love to see frederick douglass's place as he explains what do the slaves get out of this little arrangement? there is no relationship. >> frederick douglass has several meetings with lincoln. lincoln famously hatches a plan with him which i often cite as evidence of lincoln's sincerity in making sure emancipation was promulgated even if he was defeated in the 1864 election that saw johnson's live and that is to spread word of the

emancipation into the deep south so that even if he lost to mcclellan in 1864 a larger number of enslaved people would be liberated under terms of the proclamation which hopefully the courts would validate so frederick douglass has a plan of creating an army of bounty hunters to go into the south, pay these people to get the word out to the deep south and frederick douglass says lincoln is the one white leader who treated him as if there is no difference in color. after the second inaugural which douglas witness saw johnson behave in a drunken way at his swearing-in. cold medicine or liquor. >> he was drunk. >> he comes back to the white house and is barred from the white house. african-americans didn't come through the front door to go to receptions. he got in and lincoln said there is my friend douglas to a group of white people. on heard of in the united states.

there was no one his opinion high-value more than yours. almost a variation on enough about me, what did you think about me? and frederick douglass said i think it was a sacred effort but of course frederick douglass rethinks lincoln and by 1876 the unveiling of the freedom monument in washington he is quintessentially the white man's president also in 1865 he said he was the black man's president so a lot of evolving fought on that relationship. >> johnson had been drinking because johnson had been ill and in those days people fought whiskey was medicinal. >> you mean it is not? >> i had been drinking because johnson had been ill and in those days people fought whiskey was medicinal. >> you mean it is not? >> i was setting somebody up to say that. >> i want to add a note to. the curious psychology of this man -- annette gordon-reed did a good job plumbing that psychology the 2-hour i it is odd because he was only

acceptable on the 1864 platform because he was willing to buy into an anti slavery position. he was against slavery. but the reason he opposed slavery so much is because he believed it the 1ve the aristocrats, the white aristocrat's an unfair advantage. the best window into his psychology is the statement he once made where he said i pray to god that every man should have a slave, for then all of us would be equal. the other the lacks what lincoln had which was empathy, considering blacks fellow human being that fog them only as giving an advantage to the aristocrats who had humiliated him in his youth. that security is -- that psto >> somebody who was president at a critical time. that is the real paradox. here was a person who was not lovable in the way that we think of people who are lovable but

nevertheless he is there at a critical moment that you have to know about this period. >> yet the revisionism -- so we can get another question. when the age of this surrounding -- johnson was considered a misunderstood hero. he was still being taught in schools as the guy who the, quote, radicals gain the pawn and at this time ts the e we we reading profiles and courage one chapter was devoted to senator ross of new york. what did we know? we thought it was great that he was being -- tested deciding vote to acquit andrew johnson. this has turned 180 degrees on that. >> next question? you in the blue shistt. >> two questions. i can to wait to read the book,

the compilation of new york times articles and there is the cd and it to. are these digitized? can i search by word through those? >> yes. if we have all of the articles published on the civil war congressional there is a lengtua piece also on the run up for did. it beackns in 1850 and does not to the end of reconstruction but what textbooks call the end of reconstruction if we had all the articles published in that the book would fill the room. we selected 600 to 630 of the key articles we thought best explained what the times was telling its readers but the cd contains all of them. and it is searchable. >> one admonition. not a great sales pitch but the new york times were pioneers in scahe cing. some of the scahe cing is not

exactly perfect. we cheered on for doing it so rarely and giving us a complete batch. >> the other aspect of c. herering the war, winslow homer and the poet, what was the situation of yetting illustrations? >> all hole other session. the illustrated weekly published in new yoristt frank was lee, harper's weekly and several others send war artisper' out a others to the front. they generally did what photat.raphers did and that was stay out of the way. going through the air in the o.anner craig described final day of gettysburg it was not a great idea to have your head buried in the sketchbook or

under a photographer's hood. that they did create a remarkable record of camp life and the aftereffects of battime and they brought the war visibly of 2 people, the photographer and the artists. they were an extraordinary bunch. and i would suppose just leave it at the fact that homer, alone among them, evolved into a great american artist and there will be a museum exhibition in washington and the metropolitan museum between 2012, and 2013 on the art of the civil wang a ne lobur at photat.raphy and paintg as it much tours and goes from news medium to ier aressionisti medium and history medium. >> if you want to learn more about this you need to read two of harold's 218 books, the union s the age and the confederate i.

>> what was the new york times editorial position during reconstr01tion and did it evolve? >> the new yo one ts the es rema party paper under the tutelage of henry raymond and is s01cessor. ral.ond died in 1869. fairly young and was taken over by his business partner. they pretty much -- president johnson's position on these issues. they did write stories about the activities of the klan and we included those in the book but not as many and they tended to be pif ye 3 or 4 and fewer as te

went on. the clan bill was covered but not with the same kind of enthusiasm and dedication with which they covered the war. >> not until the 1890s, the new york times from its owners in terrible shape and losing readers that the modern new york times that we know comes into being. they are the antecedence of the soul brother family. that is when the times we know, non-partisan in news and very progressive in editorial policy begins to take shape. >> one last question. wait for the microphone. >> there has been some allusion to the ambivalence about slavery. peter drucker and paul johnson,

the historian, have recently written about this and said that the founding fathers meaning washington and jefferson and others had given up on slavery until james watt invented the steam engine in 1776 and then he lot of whitney came along and invented the cotton gin and it may keep textiles in the cotton picking solve much more demanding that they have cheap labour and that reinvented slavery. do you have a reaction to that? had the founding fathers really given up? >> i don't think the founding fathers had given up on slavery because of the cotton gin. what you are describing is exactly what happened. that is the change in industry

and efficiency but washington died in 99. jefferson a don't think had -- jefferson continued to believe until the end that slavery was going to die out. i don't think he thought about the full implications or understood the full implications of what the cotton gin would bring about. i think he had given up on slavery in the sense that he thought it was a retrograde system that would die away but i don't think it was those two inventions -- it was not linked to those two inventions. >> i think it is time to bring this session to a conclusion. the 146th anniversary of we's surrender, what emerges knowledge the union won the war but won the piece partially. that emerges from these two books. the first, complete history or new york times complete civil

war edited by harold holzer and craig symonds and "andrew johnson," annette gordon-reed's wonderful little volume. thank you very much for attending. all the authors will be available to sign books in the gymnasium next door. thank you very much for coming. [applause] >> that was annette gordon-reed, harold holzer, craig symonds and joseph glatthaar giving a few perspectives of the civil war. in a few moments we will be back for the last panel of the day from the indianapolis book festival. conversation on the issue of race. >> the shooting happened at 2:27 approximately. six shots got off in two

seconds. how long before the hospital was dealing with this? just a matter of a few minutes. >> he came to the hospital. he walked and then collapsed and they brought him into the resuscitation area. most dramas are noted that a trauma patient is coming and the trauma team assembles and the patient area is waiting. there was very little time to do that. they put him on a gurney, took his clothes off and started examining him and did all right things. so reagan walks and, gerry carr is in a limousine and tries to get his hand -- and he thinks he wants to be a cowboy. he gets out and hitches up his pants like he always does and his aide, like beaver, go the think he is going to be okay. the others think he doesn't look so good. ronald reagan viewed his role as

president of the world to play. he was not going to be carried offstage. he walked then, 15 feet and collapses like a rock. there is a paramedic, bob fernandez, and it is not a secret one but he -- bob hernandez is there. he sees reagan fall to the ground and he thinks my god, cote city. that means he is going to die. the nurse's hands are shaking and having a nightmare thoughts about the president is going to die. they did not think he was going to make a. >> what did you think when he collapsed? >> i thought he was going to die too. i thought the nurse said no blood pressure but she said whoa

from blood -- blood pressure and faintheart be.low from blood -- blood pressure and faintheart be. he kept living on. usually they page me, i was surprised to hear over the public address system -- it is unusual. i didn't know what was going on. i went back to the resuscitation ariane and very was on a stretcher totally naked and the president of the united states -- >> did you know -- how did you know it was the president? >> it looked like the president. there was no question about it. >> you had never seen him naked. >> i had never seen him naked.

they were doing an excellent job resuscitating him and doing all the things we train to do. they all spent time in baltimore for three months so they were experienced. when i got there he actually was improving already. he was lying down so that always improves blood pressure. food was going into him. he was alert. he had a concerned look on his face. we asked how he was doing. he was a little short of breath and had some pain. we saw the entrance wound and the bullet and saw where it came out. it did not. [talking over each other] >> we had the information. it was a small local hole underneath -- so things move very quickly. six or seven people around.

anesthesia in the front. people from the outside looking in think it was very chaotic. it was not. everybody had a job to do and it was moving very quickly. in a small period of time blood pressure was coming. we knew because he lost blood, the left side of the chest and the bullet went into the chest, he had bleeding into his left thoracic cavity. >> how long before there was surgery? >> the first thing you do is put a chest tube in. the way you treat most of these patients successfully is put a chest tube in. the idea is to put the tube in the forensic cavity and draw out the blood and the longer expand. the lawn is a low pressure system. not like the arterial system. once it expands, usually stops 90% of the time. decided did not.

>> there was that preliminary but by what? 3:30 he was under? >> he was in the emergency room in 30 minutes. a bunch of saline and the test tube and and you watch the blood come out of the tuned. all the blood was accumulating in the thoracic cavity and once that is out you hope that blood loss is less and less and this did not happen. it got more. that is what are called dr. ben aaron, chief of forensic surgery, he came down and took over care of that patient. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> what i would like to talk to you about this afternoon is a catastrophe. a catastrophen