it was not something that was an easy sell, particularly coming so soon after isolationism in the 1930s. but as a result of the cold war, the united states found itself abroad having, in various ways, to rule others abroad. and yet it sought to do so often by attacking or challenging or just otherwise dismantling colonial structures, sometimes because those got in the way of american interests, other times because they had to do with, um, events unfolding at the moment. and so what the book does is it looks at how that changing role in the world altered domestic politics. >> sixteen million americans were in uniform during world war ii. what kind of a political power did they come home with in 1945, and did they wield that power? >> well, they came home with an extraordinary presence. remember, the veterans of the first world war had become

greatly 'em bittered in the 1930s with the depression, images of veterans standing on street corners selling apples, being routed from the capitol by the army in the bonus riot, and consequently, most soldiers coming home anticipated a depression and fear that they would be stuck in a similar place. but in the interwar period the american legion and other veterans' lobbies had formed and gained considerable leverage within the corridors of the capitol starting in the mid 1930s and cresting, really, during the 1940s during the war. and is servicemen readjustment act, the g.i. bill, really demonstrated how that leverage had increased. now, the veterans were not unanimous. there were millions of them. they came in all different political stripes, had different interests, but the most powerful lobbies -- the american legion, the vfw and some others -- of course, played an essential role

in shaping postwar political life. and i should add with great popular support. there was nothing that most americans wanted to do more than to support the boys coming hope. coming home. this isn't to say that some income without ambivalence and concern because of the costs of war which were substantial. >> professor sparrow, were there any parallels that can b be drawn between what happened after world war ii to the size of government to the vietnam war, 9/11? >> i would make a fundamental distinction between mobilization for total war which is what we're talking about and world war ii. and the mobilization for what was called elemented war which was quite substantial but had the term limited war because it applied that a portion of the nation's resources would be mobilized, but that limited war was potentially unlimited and that it could be applied anywhere around the world or in more than one theater or locale during the war. and so in the age of the, of

conscription, so from 1941 to 1973 with a very brief hiatus in the late 1940s that meant that, um, that a broad swath of american men might be deployed overseas for what were called limited wars. and this created a very different kind of dynamic, a different sense of obligation. then the wars that have followed '73, i would argue, are different still because they rely on the all-volunteer forces. >> was the debt from world war ii paid when? >> it was never fully paid off. it had been paid down by 1980 when ronald reagan entered office in '81, it had been paid down to a level almost as low as the debt of the new deal. the levels of debt of the new deal at the end of the 1930s. and, um, then, of course, there was another cycle of military spending that raised that.

>> here's the cover of "warfare state" by university of chicago professor james sparrow. why this cover? why'd you choose this picture? what is this? >> oh, i think the photograph really captures how america learned to paint within the line of patriotism during the war. if you're familiar with the flag, you know it represents federalism and the way the several states were brought together in the union. this is a reworking of that patriotic logo into a more fused, unitary symbol appropriately 'em emblazoned one side of a bomber owned by the u.s. military representing a kind of national unity. and the way she holds her hand painting within the lines captures the way that americans taught themselves to internalize their sense of obligation to the government. >> james sparrow of the university of chicago where booktv is on location. here's his newest book, "warfare

state: world war ii americans and the age of big government." >> you're watching booktv on c-span2, 8 hours of nonfiction -- 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books every weekend. >> booktv is on location at the university of chicago where we are talking with several professors of the university who are also authors. and now we're pleased to be joined by david strauss who is the author of "the living constitution." he also teaches law at the university of chicago law school. david strauss, how do you define a living constitution? >> well, it's a good question, and the living constitution is an idea that is controversial, but it really shouldn't be controversial. it's the idea that the constitution as it was drafted in 1787 and has been amended a few times since then, that that constitution has to evolve over

time in order to keep up with changing circumstances and changing ideas about how society should be run. >> what would you consider to be an evolution of the current constitution? >> well, there are several examples. here's one. um, throughout the first hundred or so years of the republic really up until the late is 19th century, the idea was that the federal government could be very small and that both the federal and state governments would play a limited role in regulating the economy. then as the country became less agrarian and more industrial, ideas about that changed, and both the state legislatures and congress started to play a more active role in regulating the economy. at first the supreme court didn't like that, struck down a lot of those laws as unconstitutional. but over time the supreme court came to see that those laws were necessary and changed its view gradually to the constitutional law we have now which allows for a very ec tensive role --

extensive role by both the federal government and the states in regulating the economy. >> what is originalism? >> originalism is the idea that one way or another the answer to any issues about the constitution that we have today can be found by going back to the time the constitution was drafted, or the time the amendments were ratified and seeing what they thought back then, taking their ideas from back then and applying them to today's problems. that's the idea anyway. >> does it work? is. >> i don't think so. i think it's, i think it's just not a workable scheme, and it's not workable for a couple of reasons. one is just that it's really hard to figure out what they were thinking back then. that's what historians do, and historians disagree among themselves, and sometimes historians just say, well, they were kind of confused back then. they weren't clear on what they were doing. but the deeper problems really are that each if we can figure out what they thought back then, today -- they had those ideas

about that society. when the united states was founded, it was a small country, four million people. that was the whole country. it was clinging to the east coast, it was a rural country, only 5% of the people lived in cities. that's a whole different world. and even if we knew what they thought about that world, it wouldn't tell us what they thought about our world. >> professor strauss, what's the controversial part of a living constitution? what do people find controversial about that? >> i think what people find controversial, and it's a fair concern, is that, well finishing the constitution's not fixed, if it doesn't mean today what it's always meant, then someone's changing it. and that makes us nervous because we think that that someone who's changing it is going to be some bunch of o judges who are just going to impose their own views on the rest of us. and that's a legitimate concern. >> antonin scalia, former university of chicago law professor, suspect he? >> yes, he is. >> is he a friend or yours or

acquaintance? >> awane wane dance. >> he would not agree with your premise, is that correct? >> i think that's right in the sense that he says he's an originalist. now, in practice as a supreme court justice he understands that originalism doesn't work all the time, and he's even said, well, i'm an originalist, but i'm not a nut, and there are times when i'll depart from originalism when it's necessary to do so. >> but hasn't he used the phrase "dead constitution"? >> he has, and as i said, i think the concern -- and it's a legitimate concern -- is that, well f the constitution's changing, just tell me something about who's changing it and why and when, and i'm not sure i want to get onboard with the people who are changing it. there's a concern there that needs to be addressed. >> how do you glean the founding fathers' intent, and is it important in 2011 to know what the founding fathers' intent was? >> well, there are a couple of

things you can say about the founding fathers' intent. if what you're looking for are the really underlying principles of the country, you know, respect for diversity, a limited government that protects liberty but is active enough in order to do the job of governing, if you're defining the founders' intent at that level of principle, then it's absolutely relevant, and it's something that i think all of us would agree with. when you get to specifics, you know, what did they think about environmental protection or occupational safety or labor relations or things like that, then i think to ask the question about the founders' intent really leads you nowhere because, as i said, first of all, it's going to be able to figure out what they thought, and even if you do, that doesn't tell you what they thought about our world which is a very different world. >> david strauss, do some of the constitutional amendments that have passed over the years, isn't that the way to make the constitution a living document? is. >> you know, in theory it would be, but if you look at the way

the constitution is amended, if you look at the hoops you have to jump through to amend the constitution, it's just not a practical way of changing things. you need two-thirds of eachous 40 of congress, and that's only the start. then you need three-quarters of the states to ratify the amendment. so the fact is we really haven't used the amendment process to do a lot of the things we've done by changing the constitution. most of the changes have come about in the other ways, and often what happens, actually s that we change things, and then we amend the constitution after we've already changed it, and the amendments catch up with the changes we've already made. >> do you teach the living constitution here at the university? >> well, i teach the law. um, i teach what the law is. i don't try to sort of process thelytize one view or the other. when i teach, i just try to play it straight and show my students this is what the law is, these are the questions it raises, these are the things you're going to want to think about. the questions you're going to

want to ask, the judgments you're going to try to make. >> the cover of your book, "the living constitution," what was it trying to signify? >> i think it's trying to signify a tree that's in the process of growing. the growth of the tree is really necessary and is something we should celebrate and not be afraid of. >> would you foresee a rewriting of the constitution? >> no, i don't think so. i think one of the remarkable things saw -- is that we've done very well with the institution we have precisely because we figured out ways that it can evolve that meet our problems, that change with society but that doesn't just turn the constitution over to a bunch of judges to do what they want. and i think that we've found in the constitution, and this is in no small part because of the genius of the framers, we've found in the constitution a document that is adaptable enough and capable of evolution and doesn't put us in a

straitjacket, and that's why it's worked so well for so many years. >> you had several years of government service. what were they? >> i was in the justice department in the office of legal counsel and then in the solicitor general's office. >> under which president? >> initially, under president carter for a short period of time and then under president reagan. >> and what courses are you teaching at the law school right now? >> i teach constitutional law, i teach federal jurisdiction, a course on the relationship between the federal and the state courts, i teach administrator law, and i teach a first year course on legal theory designed to introduce the students to the basic operation of our system. >> is this your first book? >> it is my first book. >> david strauss, "the living constitution." professor strauss teaches at the university of chicago. >> this weekend learn more about the literary scene of savannah, georgia, one of eight southeastern cities we're touring this year for booktv.

next, an interview with hugh golson author of "the sign of the buck." >> andrew low was one of savannah's more prominent citizens. he was a merchant, he was a entrepreneur, he was a family man, but technically there's two andrew lows. first of all, this is a scottish family. they are from the area on the east coast of scotland. the low family were not the most important people around. they were tenant farmers on the lands of the lord's keith who were the big shots in the neighborhood. and scotland had been in to a bitter conflict with england for years, and they had paid dearly for it. the scottish could not do business outside of their nation. they were banned from doing

commerce in the british empire. but those restrictions were lifted in the early 1700s, and we see scotsmen pour out over the british empire with their skills attending ledgers and moving merchandise. and they appear all over america. and the low family was one such scottish family. it was more than just a family, it became a syndicate of the extended family of the lows, the isaacs, the taylors and others. it started with andrew low left glasgow, he had been trained as a young accountant and businessman, and he moved to savannah, georgia, and established himself in the new century, the 1800s, the early years. and he brought a cash investment with him that would have been provided by the family or awellier member in glasgow. and he set up a shop in savannah

as a merchant who would be dealing with goods from england. he was very prosperous, bringing in goods from england and shipping out produce to england. and, of course, the slave trade was part of this also. but we see commerce becomes the center of the family of low, and he brings in nephews and others to savannah to work for this enterprise. on several occasions brought nephews, cousins and others in to try them out. they didn't work out, so they'd find a new fit. maybe they would be captain of one of the ships that the sindhuate owns -- syndicate owned, or maybe they would run an office in glasgow or liverpool. so the family always took care of the family as they expanded and moved on. but for andrew low sr. the question would always be, who is the worthy one who should inherit my wealth and my business since i am a bachelor

in my older years? and the answer was, that nephew, andrew low jr. he rose to the expectation in savannah. he came to savannah and mixed and mingle with the the social crowd, something that uncle was too busy for, too much of a merchant to care about nighttime parties and things. but young andrew was handsome, he was debonair, probably spoke with a little scottish brogue, but that was okay in savannah since there were so many scotsmen. and he will slowly take over the business and prove to be an outstanding businessman. now, the interesting thing is we always look at that civil war as an interrupter of history. if it hadn't occurred, what would this have done or that have done? for andrew low the answer would be he probably would have been a robber baron or a captain of industry. he was on that course buying into railroads, multiplying his

money, working off of two continents. he was by far the wealthiest man in savannah prior to the civil war, and had he not gotten so entangle inside the confederacy in writing bonds, contesting missing merchandise with the federal government, he probably would have been one of the those industrialists working alongside his, um, homeland patriot, mr. carnegie and others. so it could have been a different story, but that war interrupted it. now, the interesting thing is andrew low jr. made so much money that it allowed his children to live a life of leisure for better and for worse. andrew low jr. had had two wifes, both of them dying early in life, complications from childbirth. the first wife had two living children who became very prominent in english circles.

one of them became married to an admiral who was knighted by the king, and so she became lady granville, amy low. so it's interesting to know that we start out with a family that literally were serfs on the land of the wealthy, who live inside a stone -- lived in a stone hut with a that muched roof, and they end up -- thatched roof, and they end up meeting the queen. and another son, another child from the second marriage, william low, lived a life of leisure with the sporting crowd. his entire agenda was when will the horse races be so i can enter my horses, and when is the social season in london, and when does the hunting season open in scotland? he revolved his life around that. and within that set he met a very important person, the presence of wales, queen victoria's son.

and they had those weekend parties that the victorians were so well known for, when infidelities popped up. and this is an interesting part of the story because william mackey low was married to juliet gordon of savannah. she, of course, will end up being the founder of the girl scouts. but as an early married woman, she is in the countryside of warwickshire. she lives in wells burn house, and right across the meadow is warwick castle. ooze daisy live -- another daisy lives there, the lord's wife, and they were good friends, but they were gulfs apart in their personal ethic. lady warwick was quickly becoming the mistress to the prince of wales. in all these house parties, there were all sorts of signals to let you know who was

available once people move today their bedrooms, you know, a shoe placed outside the door pointing down the hall mean i'm ready for this hour or that hour. and all sorts of little things like that went on. and the king always had his mistresses. and it's interesting to note by following the dates within the king' life that -- king's life that while he had dalliances with lady warwick, lord warwick was in georgia being hosted near savannah among his hunting trip he was on by daisy low's father right over here on ogle thorpe avenue. so while they were dining on soup and talking about fishing for tarpin, the lord's wife was being anything but true to her husband across the ocean next door to mr. gordon's daughter. so these type things probably offended the young daisy gordon. she was not of that class, and

infidelities were not part of her life or life in savannah. there was another complication with her, and it was her hearing. it was going from bad the worse. she had had an eardrum problem in the past, and upon her marriage she had a grain of rice embedded in the other ear which irritated it, and the cure was worse than anything else. and she literally was deaf completely on one side and partially deaf on the others. and that probably muted her so that she couldn't enjoy big galas where people are talking and noise is bouncing. she probably felt outside of things. he probably seemed odd to many of these lords and ladies when she would answer one question with a completely different answer as deaf people normally do. and so she was isolated. and then the inevitable happened to her; her husband found another woman.

it was rather aer sad. her sister-in-law had lost a child, and william low took her sister jesse to a seaside resort to have a weekend off, and there mrs. anna bateman, a widow, spotted mr. low, and she moved in for the kill. she was everything his wife daisy was not. she moved in circles, she didn't mind those new mores, and before he knew it, she had moved into wells burn house with the lows in a separate wing. daisy low's status was sliding down. as their marriage becomes a verbal assault back and forth, she finds the ultimate indignity, mr. low told the servants only to obey ms. bateman and not mrs. low. the handwriting was on the wall. she left her husband at that point. this was a serious problem in

savannah and in england. um, these things were normally quieted down, the king's affairs and such were never mentioned. it was just impolite. marriage went on no matter what, and here this american woman who's going to file for divorce? this is unthinkable. it was a sad situation for the turn of the century for this generation of low. mrs. low is at her bottom point. she really has little or no allowance. the family is dividing, taking sides on all of this, and in the middle of this is the strange mrs. bateman. unfortunately, he is kind of going down the tubes. heavy drinking is affecting him, bouts of illness and other things are clouding him, and in 1906 he did die without executing the divorce. while on a vacation trip with