now with one of the federal election commissioners called the evil twins of political campaigns, the super pacs are out right now. i think evil twin is a wonderful name to describe them. they are like a campaign on their supposedly independent but, you know, saying buddies, same donors, message courtney without being caught at it. you can pretty much see how that works. but in terms of the evil side of evil twins, unlimited donations that have restricted to a campaign. unidentified donations, other than required to be reported in the campaign, and if you get really down, dirty, bio, ugly and light, who cares? nobody is accountable because it's not the campaign doing it. there's no osha. so it really is an awful new events in the american political system, as many people have said on both sides of the aisle.

so we've got a bit of a battle ahead of us, but i think it is a really good battle to fight. if we write and if we're lucky, the citizens united decision will go down in history with plessy v. ferguson as one of the truly awful supreme court decisions. one that later supreme court would come to regret. i'll close with two quick points. one is that i think as a lawyer who has done a fair amount of a public practice, that was kind of my thing back when i was actually practicing law, there's a bit of a weak underbelly to the citizens united decision. and that is, its findings of fact. people who practice of the law know the supreme court's are not supposed to do findings of fact. that's what the trial court does. the supreme court looks at it, takes the facts as they are in the record, and they determined if the law has been correctly

applied to the supreme court made findings of fact. they made a finding of fact on unlimited corporate spending on elections does not create corruption or even the appearance of corruption. well, that's a preposterous finding of fact for anyone who's been around politics maybe that's a problem that crops when you supreme court members have never been in office before. i think it was an ulterior motive here because that critical point of fact, as long as it was, was the linchpin for the rest of the analysis. if a finding of fact isn't there, the entire decision falls to pieces. so i think we need to be careful about attacking a finding effective the previous cases that they overruled had plenty of findings to the contrary. legislative hearings have developed plenty of findings to the contrary, and experience tells you the contrary. and whether it's the company that comes in and drops $4 million worth of negative trash, against one candidate, or

another, and you are supposed to, there is no allegiance between the candidate and the company that did not? and it gets worse when you take it to the next up, which many people think about citizens united overlook. citizens united isn't just dangerous because what the corporations will do under citizens united. it is dangers because of what they will threaten to do. the most dangerous thing under citizens united is the lobbyists going into the congressman, and by the web or director congress and tom allen who did such a wonderful job representing maine in a year. [applause] come and visit him or they will come and visit me and they will say step in the office. your, i would like to show you something. look at this ad. and the ad blows me to bits. and they say, we are going to put three or $4 million behind that had. and were going to do it through a company that will cover will make up the name, no one will

trace it to us, and you'll have a real problem on your hands. unless you vote right. you vote with us on this, and nobody sees that add. you vote against us on this and it is $4 million behind that ad starting next, you know, august or whatever the date is. that meeting nobody ever sees. there's really no account before the. but when you open the floodgates this way, you open the floodgates also to the threat. so we really have to be talking about how wrong those factual findings are, and build that record. i'm happy to say that we have one brave supreme court mentioned in montana earlier. montana supreme court just a very clear decision and they said we have a record, and using very strong language like clearly unlimited corporate spending, interferes with elections, inevitably it drowns out the voice of regular people, they rejected the citizens united decision.

so, you know, it's an interesting ferment when you even have state supreme court's fighting back. i'm going to take the liberty of having you here as an audience because i know you're interested in this, to make one final point, and that is unrelated to citizens united exactly, juries. juries are an incredible, incredible part of our constitutional structure. there in the constitution bill of rights, not once, not twice but three different times. tocqueville describes them as the core constitutional elements that protects us from tyranny and a central part of the record central of government. in the other attacks, on the system and the other decisions that have thwarted corporation, very often the juries have been the target and we let it pass. very few people think of the jury as an important part of our constellation of rights and a

government structure. and so i urge you, as you think as an organization, i know many organizations are represented here, don't forget the jury. every time they make a decision that diminishes and americans right to a jury, they are diminishing one of the core elements of our constitutional structure of government. so nobody knows this better than jeff who has written so extensively on this, and in such a wonderful way, has a great book. he is a great voice. and without further ado, i have to run for a flight, so excuse me, but i give you jeff clements. [applause] >> well, thank you, senator whitehouse. and thanks to michael and caroline. before senator whitehouse goes too far though, i have here -- he already got a book. i sent him a book of recount so

this one doesn't cost as much but ethically more valuable. it's the constitution. free speech for people and it includes the declaration and the gettysburg address. [laughter] [applause] >> senator whitehouse saying that he was warming up for me, i feel like the garage band that comes on after springsteen or something. [laughter] and some just going to serve his way for a minute here, and i don't usually do readings of my book because it's not that kind of a book. i'll talk a bit about it in a minute. but near the end after sort of laying out the history of where citizens united came from, where this corporate speech doctrine came from, how it was jammed up in the chamber of commerce and amongst, you know, very selective of the largest corporations in the world to bitterly transform our social political and legal structure.

eyed and with quoting senator whitehouse actually. i'm not even sure he knows this lse page cached unless you read to page 142 already. [laughter] because he went to the senate floor after the bp disaster, and the disaster is in the right word. bp, the colts build a bp is much like the energy killing of 29 coal miners in west virginia, and many other things that we call accidents and disasters. they are consequences of unchecked corporate power, unbalanced power between people and corporations, biggest in the world. and they cut the connection from our government and the people. and as massey in west virginia several reports about what happened in the big branch, upper big branch coal mine explosion, explicitly links it to massey's political contributions and activity in west virginia. they had 65,000 violations of law, of the mining safety act. nothing has been change.

they ran to set the book. bobby kennedy calls them a criminal enterprise. they were like a rogue, out of control corporation who kills people as result. on a larger national scale, that's really what citizens united is about. it's sort of the endgame of what's happened in west virginia and other places but senator whitehouse took to the fore after the bp disaster, and it came out that bp and other oil, oil executives were literally in bed with government officials who were supposed to be regulating them. and this is what he said. so it's a reading from the book but it is actually his work because i couldn't find any myself that were better than this. this is what he said on the floor. have we now learn what price must be paid when the wealthy -- i'm sorry come when the stealthy as corporate influence on how to reach into an capture our of government. i pray let us have learned this, let us have learned that lesson. i sincerely pray we have learned and that this will never happen again. but let us not just break in this troubled world god works

through our human hands, grows a more perfect union to our human hearts, creates a loving community through our human thoughts and ideas. so it is not enough to pray. we must act. we must act in defense of the integrity of this great government of ours which have brought such light to the work of such freedom and equality to our country. we cannot allow this government, this model around the world that inspires people to risk their lives to come to our shores. we cannot allow any element of this government to become the tool of corporate power, the abbot of corporate influence. the puppet of corporate tentacles. and i think senator whitehouse is absolutely right about that. it is far given not just to pray, not just to bemoan the citizens united? but to act. and so thank you for the. i know you have to run. [applause] >> so, we know what citizens united was about. i think you're here tonight, many folks in the room and we worked closely together over the

last two years to overturn citizens united, and i know we're going to. with a constitutional amendment or changing the courts that will be driven by the constitutional amendment campaign. but that should outside of this room, too. if you go around the country, if you look at polling, any sort of measurement, americans are not going to put up with corporations messing with our elections. they will not put up with this notion that corporations have the same rights as people. there is a visceral reaction, whether you're a conservative or progressive or anything in between to that proposition. and that as senator whitehouse said is the opportunity. in some ways citizens united is the opportunity to push back against a doctrine that is already even before citizens united done so much damage. in the country. so my book, if i could just a few words about it, tells how did this happen to if this is such a reaction of the american

people and we have seen it, if everybody knows this is wrong, how could it possibly have happened, was this is a bad day on the court? what happened here? an unfortunate that wasn't just a bad day. i begin the book in 1970, birthday, april 1970, 20 million americans came out because rivers were literally catching on fire. that there was literally killing kids and elderly because it was so polluted. the land was being destroyed, this was before superfund. and essentially the extra musician of corporate profits, of corporate cause, it was an external ask him of corporate cost to the environment was just totally out of control to a news like other times in american history, 29 americans, didn't matter what their politics were our allies, came out and stood up and said this is got to change. and now with richard nixon in the white house, again, not a

partisan response, almost within months literally after that, in a few short years where the clean water act, and the clean air act, the safe drinking water act, the eastern wilderness act, endangered species act, the epa created for the first time in american history. a total we creation really of the relationship between we the people and how corporations are going to operate. so democracy was working well. by the way we had to mms in those years. one was a limit which discriminated against poor folks and often against people of color and voting. and the voting age was lowered to 18, to 18, 19 and 20-year-olds could vote. will talk about the minutes in a minute but we can't buy this idea that somehow the amendments don't happen. americans have always taken to the amendments tool when democracy has been on their mind. but in virginia, richmond,

virginia, lewis powell who was then the chamber of commerce advisor, an executive on the board of directors of philip morris, and about a dozen other corporations, large corporations, reacted a little bit differently to my reaction to what i see a sort of a flowering of democracy actually working to he called it an attack on the free enterprise system and he wrote a memo in great detail to the chamber of commerce saying that free enterprise system is under attack. he cited ralph nader by name, somehow because of the consumer protection issues, and laws that are coming into effect. and he called for what he said using activist minded courts to create a corporate writes. as he said over many years, not just the short-term ever, fund over many years a campaign to transform american social, poker

and legal structures to be more favorable to the largest corporation. six months later president nixon appointed him to the supreme court. same he appointed a conservative, william rehnquist. and it is interesting of those to in the past been quite different on the corporate lewis powell went on to write for cases in the period of about six years the greatest something that had never before existed in american history. yet corporate speech rights the first time is 1970 with a case in massachusetts ar. it struck down our law in massachusetts that kept corporations and spinning in citizens referenda. in some ways it was a preview of citizens united. and lewis powell wrote the 5-4 decision to the conservative william rehnquist out a passionate dissent saying that corporations do not have the same rights as those to which he called those who hold their

allegiance and existence of something higher than the commonwealth of, unlike corporations which are creation of the state. and, of course, you know, you have a progressive descent as well but this overwrites doctrine for the first time was put into our first amendment striking down laws and elections and referenda both in massachusetts. he went on to write an opinion striking down new york law that prevented utility corporations from promoting consumption because that would help shareholders. struck down. violation of corporate speech on and on and on. he did for more of those and the doctrine was set in the law. they became for the first time a corporate speech, corporations were like people. they could speak to you go back and read the breeze. i quote some of them. they are filed by washington legal foundation, new england legal foundation, chamber of commerce, national litigation project, all these foundations that were stood up in response

to lewis powell's memo. they didn't exist either before. they were created and funded by exactly what he called for, and they filed a brief after brief same corporations are persons, corporate speakers and other terms that never existed in the lobby for. corporate speakers, corporate voice over and over until lewis powell writes a decision and this doctrine was sent. it struck down a host of laws before citizens united, from public health laws, environmental laws, financial regulation loss, disclosure laws about the ingredients in your food. monsanto makes a genetically growth drug. it is illegal. and here, part because of the money issues we see is the domination of big corporate power in washington, it sailed through the fda but it was legal. vermont passed a law, i tell the start of a the dairy farmer who worked to get this law, a 65-yard dairy farmer, and he put

together a group called rural vermont and they work and the work and the work. montana to oppose him every step of the way. i got a law in vermont they said if your milk, butter, cheese, ice cream, any dairy product comes from cows that of entry with his genetically modified bovine growth hormone that is illegal everywhere else in the world because of health risks, disclose it. small disclosure on the label something people can decide if they want to use that. struck down. violation of the corporate speech right. this time the right not to speak. they didn't want to see what was in, they didn't want to disclose where these dairy products came from. that was struck down, and you know, i talked, to see how this hollows out and undermines and just rates the spirit of democracy. on, the court opinion that says vermont law was unconstitutional essentially said the people of

vermont trampled on the rights of other people. other people being monsanto. so this is really about a power struggle, a struggle of people against big organize corporate power. and citizens united, i sometimes call it the football playoff season, it's really an end zone dance for the corporate power grid. it's a celebration. that's it. they essentially just said out loud what has been going on for long time before citizens united, and not just a campaign finance, which is corporations are just like people and we can't regulate them different that would regulate people. and that is catastrophic to american democracy. interestingly i think it is catastrophic the american economy. we have a thousand businesses to come out working with the american sustainable business council, business for democracy, calling for an amendment because

they know government pay to play, business is not good for competitive, healthy, innovative economy if used by the biggest corporations in the world throughout the political process to get favorable policy that is the opposite of efficient and innovative that favors the old, the old wealth from the last generation, the fossil fuel corporate wealth rather than the new business that is trying to start at the so if that in some ways, and i know you all know that i won't belabor that, but that is this toxic doctrine that lies behind citizens united that needs overturning. and because it's a constitutional doctrine, there is no debate among the making people about all, she would give corporations the power to invalidate our laws? there was never any debate about that? it was worked over three years into our constitution by activist-minded courts, according to lewis powell. introducing the phrase in a different way than hear it sometimes today.

and so the way to respond is it a constitutional proposition in a sense. do we accept it or not? corporations are people, and if we except i think we're going to turn over a broken democracy through the next generation. and unfortunate i don't think people accept. but those are the stakes. the constitutional struggle to quit had been before in our history, it's what we have now. the way we resolve these kind of things, article five of the constitution which is the amendment process. in the constitutional and both talk about the people's rights amendment, several versions of that, and people for the american way, such a good ally on this, public citizen, and many others. to build this campaign across the country for a constitutional and them in the reverse is citizens united, a reverse is the notion that corporations

have the same rights of people and reverses better elections are marketplace where the riches get to play anybody else is a spectator or at best a consumer. that's the kind of national debate and cause that we have to take on. it is hard. we need two-thirds of congress according to the states to ratify. but it is harder than ever 27 amendments. and i think the question is, we will succeed if our bet is correct that the country is ready, willing and able to do this in this time. and that bad for me, i look back is, i think about my kids and the next generation, and we will all be funded i think it is the long term that really going to be a test of whether we survived but i think backwards a lot about what those other 27 amendments came from come and people bestowed on us a democracy that works. a lot of hard work.

and so in the progressive era which is much like ours in some ways, coming out of the gilded age, an activist supreme court, activists, created the locker doctrine used the due process of law, to strike down things like child labor laws and maximum hour laws and progressive again republicans, democrats that came together because is about the public interest. and overturn those doctrines. took on the supreme court and one. they did for amendments in the space of 10 years. which again, and amendments are hard. they get for intended to not one was counted down. it was prohibition. but think of the other three, right? women got the right to vote. we take that for granted, of course. amazingly, that was a struggle for decades. and they won. women got the right to vote. we got senators elected first time. senators used to be appointed by

a back room, increase in a corrupt process of the state legislature to senators directly elect. and if you think this one is hard, i got a progressive income tax. so matching carrying the campaign for a constitutional saying we want to have an income tax, and they one. and they reverse the supreme court which had held that no, congress doesn't have the power to the federal income tax. that was a policy decision that overturned by the people in a constitutional amendment campaign. so i hate to say but we really have no excuse. you know, because they have done it before. and if we don't do it, shame on us. the people bought this done. we've done poly, 70% of the american people support a constitutional amendment. there's resolutions, and people for the american way is a great page. on their website and official all these resolutions all over the country from l.a. to new york to portland, oregon, to

towns and cities in between. we've had 1010 beauties in new england, massachusetts we attended his and our smaller towns, and 10 came together last year and passed by overwhelming margins again like on the other resolutions, 75%, condemning citizens united, calling on congress to send in a minute to the states for ratification. we have the business committee calling for. we've got everything that it takes to get an amendment done with this american consensus that something is deeply wrong and can't be fixed. it's a structural problem because it's been injected into our constitution. it needs a sort of renewal of democracy with a set of the minutes, i the one a minute or two perhaps. one going after corporate power, the other after the idea that money is speech. so i think we can do it. i know many people in this room have done a lot of work on it and it want to be doing it. so for those who are not convinced yet i hope you'll join

us. for the thrill of those, all, yes, good luck, thank you. read the book. my publisher, thank you. [applause] did i say read the book? read the book. and the book actually, it is a pamphlet almost if not a big fancy hardcover. it tells the story of what happened and then asked tools and links and propose resolutions and things you can actually use. feel free to rip it out and show tonight and say let's get this resolution than. they are all on our free speech for people website to check out united for the people with the number four.org which is consolation all these groups doing this work. and i know we will win, so with that i will be quite so we can open it up and have discussion and questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> yes, the red tide there.

>> the large bank of five lobbyists for every congressman and the military-industrial complex as to lobbyists for every congressman. they can do that without the supreme court decision. so where does this, where do you see, what does this do that clear the american people are the only group that doesn't have a lobby group in washington. >> no, that's really good question. the question is, we had this huge lobbying problem. so in between elections, you've got billions of dollars spent on corporate lobbies, military-industrial lobbies, what is them a minute to for the? the short answer is the amendment alone does not do much. the question is whether we will be like progressive era or other errors with the amendment is a way to carry the conversation about the underlying proposition to the country, and with that i

think, i think we will have a wave of reform because we make the argument that we have a structural problem we need to fix. government of people is losing. we are not going to get it if we don't do a set of fixes. the amendment i don't propose that's the only thing or the thing that will fix it all. i actually have three steps. the lobbying problem is number two. so we need a constitutional amendment. we need campaign finance laws and lobbying reform, even jack abramoff, that he is out of jail, is calling it bribery. and it is. it is legalized bribery. so we don't have to stand for the of course if we tried to fix it and we would get an argument that corporations have speech rights, spent $2 billion on lobbying a year. and so that gets to the third piece which is reasserting the corporations serve the people. not vice versa. that they get corporate charters from our state laws and produced like a limited liability,

instead of advantages that we want them to have for economic purposes. but they come with the burdens and responsibilities and rules that we can make, including stop corrupting our politicians, our politics so we would need a set of statutory laws. i don't think the constitution is not a code where we can fix write out a statute, but if we can win and carry this campaign we will have those debates and win those debates, too. that's why we need to clean up the lobbying and everything else. >> you did a nice job of some outsize in the politics a long. so of us are lawyers can we can argue about it, but since when the corporations are creatures of the states, who defied the laws as you just said, explaining to us the legal theories that enables the supreme court to tell states what they intended by writing the laws and yet, it's a great point.

and i guess caroline has gone away. i was going to say, i'm just going to say thank you again because i get at some that an issue brief ideas and a blog peace. in my view of how the supreme court did it, is not asking us to accept a whole bunch of metaphors that is not true. and it's the corporate speech metaphor, the corporate speaker, the corporate voices, and if you read citizens united, remember, congress has a set of rules for corporations and a set of rules for human beings. ..

>> government can't punish what justice kennedy called a disadvantaged class of persons. [laughter] as a corporation. so, you know, we win if we just dismiss, say, no, we don't want to talk about metaphors, we want to talk about the real thing. what's a corporation? it's a creation to have state. so it comes with the rules the state creates. states have the authority to decide what you get when you get a corporate charter. back, this is an old story in america, and we used to do better, actually, at keeping an eye on these tools that we handed out at the secretary of states' offices. they used to have 20-year limits, and they'd have to come back in and say what did you do for the public if you wanted the privilege of a charter again. we've petitioned a free speech for people, we've asked attorney general biden in delaware to

revoke the corporate charter of massey energy which is the company i talked about a few minutes ago because of their illegality. that is the standard. if a corporate charter is abused to commit crimes and illegality or even immoral purposes -- i'm not sure what's meant by that -- but the charter's supposed to be revoked. and so it is preposterous that the supreme court is able to tell the states that these things that the states created, that they used to be able to make rules about, somehow the state can't make rules about it anymore. so i was really glad to see montana's pushing back. we did a brief in the montana supreme court case, and if you haven't read the supreme court case in montana, it's wonderful. it's a 5-2 decision upholding the montana practices act which bans corporate spending on elections. and so, you know, when we did the brief people said, oh, you're wasting your time, citizens decided is going to decide that, the court can't possibly go against citizens united. the court did. and senator whitehouse showing

the factual record is corruption due to money. but the interesting thing is the two dissenters who said we have to follow citizens united and then went on to say at length to say how bad and wrong citizens united was. [laughter] ending with the irony is unlike people, corporations can't go to hell. [laughter] so it's sort of the straight-talking, big sky montana pushback. yes, right here. >> all those state chartering laws still in effect at the -- >> yeah, yeah. you can't -- >> when's the last time it's been used? >> no, corporate charter, any corporation, if you look -- many of them come out of delaware. matthew's in delaware. they've got a corporate charter. oh, you mean charter revocation laws, yeah. so the last time was actually in the tobacco litigation which is where i first saw it. unfortunately, they didn't revoke the charter of philip morris inc., but the new york attorney genre vocked the charter of -- revoked the

charter of the center for tobacco research and the tobacco institute. it was revoked as part of a settlement of the case. the progressive era which i would cite as our real good robust example of doing our job as citizens, the attorney general got a decision from the court revoking it. and the new york attorney general went after the sugar trust corporation, a monopoly of sugar companies. the problem is corporations, you can go and incorporate in another state. so it's sort of the whack-a-whole problem which led to all the corporations being in delaware in the end. >> 100 years ago. >> yeah, exactly. i'm not saying those are the same tools and responses, that we just dust them off and use them again, the spirit that we need to be, remember that i think we need to realize we're

in a new century, and we've got these old 20th, 19th century structures, these big, global corporations with charters out of states. why is that? we really should be reinventing, not just renewing our democracy, but inventing effective corporate entities that work well, and there are things like b corporations, ford benefit corporation, seven states have done that. senator jamie raskin of maryland has carried it in maryland. so i think there's a lot of entering alternatives to -- interesting alternatives to the old, you know, corporate charters that have now just been used to just take privileges and rights, quote-unquote, without any responsibilities and burdens. >> one more or, then if you will indulge, maybe you can hang out afterwards, that way you can sign books. >> yeah, sure. any other questions? you've heard enough. you're ready to join the amendment campaign. okay.

thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> we'd like to hear there you. tweet us your feedback, twitter.com/booktv. >> here's a short author interview from c-span's campaign 2012 bus as it travels the country. >> pat mcneely, your book is titled "knights of the quill." who were the knights of the quill, and what interested you in writing a book on this aspect of the civil war? >> the knights of the quill were confederate reporters who wrote for newspapers during the civil war. their colleagues in the north were called bohemians, and one of the things that interested me and my fellow colleagues who wrote the book is that these reporters normally used synonyms during the civil war. the confederates used

synonyms -- pseudonyms throughout the civil war, but in the north military reporters were required to put their initials after their names after their articles. so as a result u, the federal reporters were more easily identified. and my colleagues, henry schulte of, retired usc professor and debbie von tool and i thought that since this is an underreported area of civil war, we wanted to find out about the lives and memories of these people who reported the civil war for us and remember them. >> you've written that people of varying backgrounds, which included doctors, lawyers, educators, even a former u.s. diplomat, became war correspondents for the south. what do you believe interested these different types of people to pursue this unique role as a war correspondent?

>> it was not uncommon for journalists to also have other occupations, or it may very well be that it was other occupations and people who were interested in journalism. you couldn't really make that much of a living normally working for a newspaper even in those times, and so a lot of times you had people with two occupations. the people who went off to war, though, were people who loved to write. and so they were not only doing their primary occupations in some cases, but they also were writing and sending information back home. i think that they just loved to write and gather the material. the other thing is if you were a journalist, you didn't have to fight. they did have to join the army to be able to report, but they didn't have to fight. and even though it was difficult and their lives were at risk, it still was a gratifying job that they had. >> who were the most significant, um, of the confederate war correspondents?

>> we identified 28 who were paid, full-time, professional reporters full time for the south. they were all significant, in our opinion we think they all led unbelievable lives and made contributions frequently after the war that were also astonishing. my favorite, there's one that i think is the most significant, it's felix gregory defontaine who wrote for the charleston south carolina courier. he was one of america's first stenographers which meant he took shorthand. he was also one of the first reporters in the war because he was in the south touring to write about hostilities of the war, of the hostilities between the north and the south as early as 1860, and he was there when the shots were fired in april of 1861 at fort sumter or, and he covered almost every major battle during the civil war. he was also at the end of his life trying to write a magazine

about the civil war. he also wrote 12 books during his life, seven of which were about the civil war. and astonishingly, he took four months in the middle of the war to buy newspaper, to continue to write for it and to write a book about the civil war. at the end of the war, he, he was able to rescue a wagonload of documents that were being shipped down from richmond as the confederate government deteriorated, and those documented that he saved are in many of the museums today in america including copies of the provisional and permanent confederate constitution. >> did newspapers and reporting, um, itself, did it change during the civil war? >> very dramatically. in fact, the civil war was a turning point in journalism. one of the things that happened was the telel graph had been invented in the early 1830s,

and it had been used some in the mexican-american war where we had 12 war correspondents in texas during the mexican-american war. the telegraph was widely used during the civil war. additionally, we also had had the invention of the camera in the early 1830s, and it was used by, especially by the north in the civil war. additionally, we also had new rules that the confederate press association developed which made, created rules that were not unlike the ones you'd hear if this a journalism classroom today. so we had many dramatic changes during the civil war. >> what surprised you the most from your research about confederate war correspondents? >> well, i think the one thing that would surprise most people is the comparative size of the newspapers in the north and the newspapers in the south because when you look at the material, the coverage of the war, you sort of think about them as being the same size.

but the newspapers in the north were dramatically larger and also dramatically much better funded. the harpers weekly, for example, had a circulation of 200,000. leslies illustrated had a circulation of 100,000, and the new york herald had a circulation of 85,000. the herald sent 63 reporters to the war. additionally, they also had photographers like matthew brady and his colleagues, and they had illustrators, harpers weekly had three full-time-paid illustrators. and the south, two of the largest and most influential newspapers were the charleston newspapers in south carolina, the courier and the mercury. the courier's circulation was 7600 at its height, and the mercury's circulation at its height was only about 3600. and they never had more than three to five correspondents in the field at any given time.

so it's just amazing that southern newspapers had the kind of coverage that they had during the civil war compared to the enormous newspapers in the north at the time. >> what would you like readers to take away after reading your book? >> my colleagues and i wrote the book to save the memories of the men and women who covered the war for the south. we would like these correspondents to be remembered because they deserve to be remembered and part of the history that they wrote. >> pat mcneely, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> the c-span campaign 2012 bus visits communities across the country. of to follow the bus' travels, visit www.c-span.org/bus. >> each yearbook tv brings you several events from across the country. here's a look at some of the

upcoming fairs and festivals we plan on covering this year. booktv's first stop will be the fifth annual savannah book festival in georgia over president's day weekend. live, all-day coverage on saturday, february 18th, will feature several author presentations including carl her land disand pulitzer prize final sis.e. quinn. booktv will be live from the tucson festival of books on the campus of the university of arizona, our festival coverage includes numerous author talks and poets ranging from the great depression to forensic science. then in late march booktv visits charlottesville, virginia, for the virginia festival of the book. for a complete list of upcoming book fairs and festivals, visit booktv.org and click on the book fairs tab at the top of the page. please, let us know about book fairs and festivals in your area, and we'll add them to our list. e-mail us at booktv at