for the next hour we looks for the history and literary culture of this historic city. also known as the horse capital of the world. >> what people don't realize is kentucky nearly lost the horses at the highest levels at one time and this was after the civil war for generation when it went out east. it was a case of there have always been forces here. in fact thoroughbreds and kentucky bred -- breds the highest number but the one -- big money went up north to new york and new jersey after the civil war because that's where the finance and the stock market was. it was a crazy and are one people were making fortunes. there was no income tax and they were getting rich and they were displaying their wealth with racing stables.

>> coming up we will travel with author carl rays as he highlights historic landmarks and shares a history of maysville road a u.s. highway that played an important role in kentucky's economic development. that first author tracy campbell talks about the rise and fall of one of the country's most promising political figures edward f. prichard junior. >> the title is "short of the glory"" the fall and redemption of edward pitch -- pictured junior. if you had asked to as a bright shining star in american politics on a national scale a lot of people cap turned graham and arthur schlessinger would have said edward prichard from kentucky. he was one of those people that worked in the white house when he was in his early 20s. he seemed destined for great things and then came back to

kentucky in the 1940s, was indicted for stuffing the ballot box and went to prison and so that incredible promise just flamed out so he the rest of his life trying to rebuild out of the shadows and out of the tragedy of that scandal. prichard seem to create one of two very distinct reactions in people. either they were just taken by his intelligence, his photographic memory his wet his ability to mimic people. on the other hand a lot of people saw him as arrogant and too big for his britches. he would say things that parties that would filter throughout washington the next day and that also filtered out in kentucky where people had two very distinct feelings about him as to whether he was an up and coming political genius or someone who is just too arrogant

and too much of a no it all for his own good. pritchard never ran for anything when he was in high school so when he went to princeton i'm going to princeton newspaper and there's this headline that he's going to run for the debate team team which can you imagine running for debate team having people elect to you so i thought wow here he is putting himself up or an election so i scrolled ahead ballot stuffing debate team election and no one quite knew what it happened that they had throughout the results and so even in running for the debate team there were questions about pritchard's methods in getting where he needed to be. he was born in 1915 so when he goes to washington and franklin roosevelt is president. he didn't work closely with franklin roosevelt that but he had enough interaction.

at one point the story goes roosevelt was angry with his staffer leaking stories so he called them all in and really took the paint off the walls about what would happen the next time someone leaked a story before the president had a chance to announce it and then he realized he had gone a little too far so he said well sometimes it helps to get the story out there early and he said there's a story coming out about social security, maybe you could leak it to drew pearson and he said mr. president ira have. that was the kind of interaction he had with roosevelt. he was at the close of either but enough so that he would write speeches for him. but pritchard worked under the political scene. we mostly remember the november election of 1948 for truman versus dewey the famous image of truman holding up a newspaper. in kentucky there was a senate race between democrat and

republican and in bergen county when the sheriff went to open up the vault to get the ballot boxes ready that morning he could hear something at the bottom of the box. and took a pen knife to extract the fact that there were some ballots that had already been marked all of them for the democratic candidate chapman so someone had stuffed someone had stopped the ballots into these particular boxes. altogether 254. so there was an investigation investigation and it's interesting early on in the fbi they had no interest in pursuing a case of 254 marked ballots in a kentucky county. it was only after pritchard's name appeared and some of the memoranda going back to washington that j. edgar hoover wrote about this vigorously and thoroughly.

i had already known that there was a seven-year relationship that was not a warm one between jaeger hoover and pritchard so when hoover's opening pritchard is a possible suspect that's when everything changed. but like most greek tragedies it wasn't the fact that pritchard was framed or people weren't out to get him. he did it to himself. he later admitted he stuffed the ballot boxes but it was something more. the sunday after the election he went to see an old friend an old friend from his childhood judge william artery a presiding judge in bergen county kentucky and said he apparently confessed to it and he's confessing what he had done to a judge calling a grand jury the next day. if we take it on down to when the indictments are handed down

the thing that really seals the pritchard spaeth is the fact that they have to, the prosecutors call a sitting judge to the stand who says what richard told him of the crime and they can't really cross examine him. the jury says we felt like we had no other option but to convict and so pritchard is convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud. he is given a two-year sentence and a federal prison. a few years after having worked in the white house and after having being mentioned as a possible congressional candidate to princeton alumni weekly said one-day pritchard will probably be the democratic nominee for president. i imagine having your alumni newspaper saying that about you and here he is now going to federal prison. he was devastated. he could not return to the things that he loved. he couldn't return to politics.

no one could have him in their campaign without the notion of the is there a jailbird working for you in any capacity. i think he got there he deeply depressed -- depressed. friends tried to help him out. i interviewed mrs. katharine graham in washington about him and in her papers she had a chat look that was eventually collected by her husband and what

he would have people come in and read "the new yorker," the economist "the new york times" to him so it's a tough story from the 1950s on. there was a rumor that he did it for an election debt, that there

was a bet the wiki before that chapman would win so much of their percentage in bergen county and to hedge his bets he wanted to help himself out so that's why 200 ballots in the statewide election might make a difference. then there are others who save pritchard had not paid his dues and that he needed to show that he was still one of the local courthouse gang, that washington had made him too much of an elitist that he still understood the ways of local politics and it was something very common pritchard said. his father had done it a lot of people in bergen county and southern contactors -- is kentucky to pay his dues maybe that's why he did it. he never really explained it odd later in 1976 he admitted that he did it and said it was a moral blind spot that he had no

explanation for. and never tried to come up with an excuse for it but that it was simply something that he regretted for the rest of his life. i wish people would see that clinical biographies are fascinating but they are not just fascinating about people who are elected to win office. sometimes people who run for nothing or maybe lose an office can have an impact in ways that you can't imagine. robert k. rove show this about robert moses who was unsuccessful in electoral politics but knew how to work the system in new york to create something behind the scenes and also to see american history is rife with tragic figures whose lives we can celebrate and shake our heads at the same time because that's who we are. that's the human condition and

like i said when we started historical research you never know when to ask that first question where are you going to be taken and pritchard's life took me on it was like a river i was swept up in and i couldn't believe that i was that lucky to have a chance to write about a figure that was so complex, so dynamic, so flawed and so gifted gifted. >> while in lexington we met with mark wahlgren summers about his book "a dangerous stir"." >> i have been chasing reconstruction for many years and a lot of the racks. i've been facing down corruption in the way newspapers got the wrong story but for the book about "a dangerous stir" about

paranoia i was dealing with america coming out of the most devastating situation. eric guessed right now is three quarters of a million americans died which is an incalculable number. it's more than virtually all of our other wars up until the 21st century put together. i was looking at the way people respond to how you put the country back together again. for many historians the idea is why couldn't the two sides come together? why wasn't there a kind of compromise between those that wanted to do was to do was little reconstructing as possible and those who wanted to do things in a radical way? why wasn't there reasonable alternative? for a reasonable alternative you need reasonable people. what happens just about everybody out there has wild paranoid fantasies that people are out to undermine the republic. what if they really think that the people they are dealing with are people that are not

disagreeing with him about political positions but a conspiracy conspiracy to destroy american freedom and what if they begin to have evidence that this is the case of? wars don't just cause tremendous physical havoc and harm to human beings. they do. they don't just destroyed towns. they can destroy people's sense of rationality things that you believe impossible suddenly become very possible and then you see them anywhere. you imagine what's happening if you were a white conservative southerner and you know christmas comes there's going to be an uprising of former slaves and they are going to kill everybody so they can get ahold of their land, that they are going to butcher men women and children. you imagine really believing

that and ask what you would do in terms of policy. one of the things you do is you start reading all the former slaves cabins. you take their guns in their arms and you get rid of their rights to bear arms. you clamp down on them. you do a little judicious killing. nothing remotely like that was absolutely invented out there. was there any reality to the fear that people set free after the end of the war were going to go raping their masters or their masters wives or children and butcher them? was there a bloodbath in the south? of course not. the only bloodbath there was in the south were white folks killing folks because while they were slaves they were property. they had value. they had respect for property but now they are not property. they are fair game. imagine louisiana where in the course of say 10 or 20 years to

get 2500 people being killed. imagine one year you have over 500 racially motivated assaults and killings out their white against. that's what you got. that's the reality out there. you have been around and you know what iraq was like in 2003 and 2004. iraq in 2004 was louisiana in 1868. it's bloody and ugly and terrifying and this is going on. it's a scary time. you couldn't imagine once the war was over. the president of the united states would be killed by an assassin who might decapitate the governments of the confederacy could rise again. you would imagine that anybody as an assassin with a lead that abraham lincoln intended to make himself -- abraham lincoln was a threat to the republic and he was like a brutus killing caesar but that's the reality of john

wilkes-booth and after that you can believe anything. you can believe that maybe andrew johnson was part of the conspiracy to try to finish off his successor so he could get to the top. you can believe that the conspiracy was part of a long-standing conspiracy by the democratic party to kill any president who welcomed a democrat and you may say that's crazy you say that sends the democratic party was founded under andrew jackson who were the presidents of the opposite party? the first one was henry blame harrison and he died in office. they said it was pneumonia and the next one was zachary taylor and oh he had gotten in the way of the south and they said it was -- how convenient that was. then it was abraham lincoln and quite a pattern.

if you have prominent democrats that are saying you should elect democrats because you know you can guarantee they won't die in office what kind of message does that send? you are beginning to sense that there might be a wider broader conspiracy out there. people believed it. they thought it was there are. they wrote books about it yet it's all part of the mindset. if you have a president of the united states who believes members of the congress are out to kill him, who compare themselves to christ who think that members of the congress plan to kill kill eight million americans in the south we are talking a level of irrationality that is incredible. supposing the president of the united states -- state said today well you want me to say who are the traders from the united states? i say mitch mcconnell. i say speaker boehner. i say the heads of "fox news"

and all of their kind are traitors of the united states. your world with a plan of the united states congress is to kill at least 8 million americans? the congress of united states the supposed that congress, the body that claims itself to be the congress of the united states. supposing the president of the united states said that? what would you say? this guy needs to be carried off the cookie factory, right? this guy clearly belongs in a rubber room. you say this is a serious nutcase. what i'm doing is andrew johnson in 1866 president of the united states president of the united states in these doing exactly that. that's exactly what he's doing. you may think this is rational. i don't think this is rational. i think this is very dangerous and that guy that thinks that way you are beginning to ask if he's calling it the alleged congress or a body hanging off

the beds of government that declares itself to be of congress you might ask what is he going to do about it lacks is he going to use the army to toss it out and put in the congress he wants? is possible, don't you think? it could happen, don't you think and that's when you begin to really get into a cold sweat. that's america in 1866. andrew johnson was a brave patriotic abled talented tennessee slaveholding politician who stood by the american flag when others went after the stars and bars. became a military governor during the war and became when abraham lincoln was assassinated treated democratic president-elect did on a simply republican ticket to balance it off in 1864. andrew got -- johnson's courage

come his principles and his belief in the constitution buying the government and is not expansive. he's contempt for people is also very real and very sincere. andrew johnson wants to bring the country together as fast as possible as a way of making sure that the editors of the war would not contend. and so in 1865 he used his presidential authority to start the process going with state government run by white southern conservatives would dominate the south and where in fact even if johnson didn't want something as close to slavery as possible would be imposed upon free people. when the congress tried to adjust and change this, not to give blacks the vote but to give them essential basic rights to hold property, to marry and to sue and be sued, to testify in

court they thought johnson was on their side. in fact johnson vetoed the civil rights bill. it became very clear that he was not only not on their side but was even making arguments suggesting that this congress had no right to passage of bill because the southern states were not yet represented in it and it therefore might not even be a legal congress. this is a man another were to again and again rejects compromise in the most violent terms. in february of 1866 he will make a speech in which he will declare that the congress plans to kill a million white southerners. he will declare that there's a conspiracy, treasonous conspiracy against his life that leading members of the congress art traitors to the united states and he will charge that the congress may not be a legal congress. the result is that members of congress increasingly see him as a person you can't negotiate.

you can't deal with him and a person who may have designs to overthrow the republic himself. in the meantime johnson really believes that the congress is filled with people who want to create not a free america we know but it dangerously different tyrannical america run by northern financiers and businessmen and wild-eyed fanatics who will believe in equality the equality of mankind. you have two groups get violent loggerheads and by 1867 the fear out there is so great that people in the congress are terrified of what happens if andrew johnson has full control of the army. as long as you have general grant in charge of the army you are okay. the war department is headed headed by secretary of war and edward stanton, you are okay. these people will never sell you out to the enemy. they will never let andrew johnson use the army to

overthrow the republic and undue reconstruction. but when the president fires a secretary of war in violation of the law of congress immediately your thought is this is step one to a coup d'état and thaddeus stevens on the floor of the congress stumps around there and he says didn't i warn you he said? what good did your leniency do you? if you don't kill the beast it will kill you. that more than anything else is why you need peace as man because you are afraid if you get ahold of that army to republic certainly reconstruction is gone and that's one reason why andrew johnson is acquitted by one vote because johnson gives the guarantees to a number of wavering senators that the person who put in the charge of the army will be a person they can trust and general grant can trust, that he is not going to

give in to those they were afraid of. the way the wavering senators decide they are going to acquit him which is why he escaped conviction by one vote. 35 votes to convict, 19 to acquit. they needed two-thirds vote and without senate republican senators there would be balance and without johnson does seven votes would have been there. what reconstruction looks like and have we gone very far? of ours we have. even when reconstruction is done with the advance that happened after and during the civil war are tremendous. you could go to a family in 1900 say well you know, you now longer can vote in the south as they have taken that away from you. you are discriminated against. you are shot in a jim crow and barr out there. fewer women are prey to any

white man that wants to go after them and no jury will convict them. there's a lynch law out there. wasn't slavery better and they would locate you like you were crazy crazy? were you talking about? people can't sell off my wife my house, my kids and my parents? i can seek other jobs if i want to? i can read and write down a chance to go to school and i didn't have that before. yeah it's true there is white blind blind violence in the respite is the difference from the time when he didn't own yourself and you'd be beaten for any reason your master wanted? of course it has changed in reconstruction made a lasting permanent difference. freedom even without full rights is a tremendous thing to be cherished and to be honored. we have to celebrate reconstruction in that sense. if i have anyone walking away with anything in my book there would be two things.

number one human beings are in many ways not rational. it's irrational and their feelings, their fears or their hopes can shape and twist what they do. not just after the civil war but at all times in the second kind of thing to keep in mind is what we often forget in reconstruction. reconstruction is not just a secondhand for a new birth of freedom. it is that but it's also a chance to bind this nation together to reunite and that many peoples minds that's a done deal. but it wasn't a done deal. they didn't know how the story would turn out. they had no idea and 1865 that men would be given the vote within the next few years. they had no idea of what the outcome was. it seems to me that looking back we have to remember that past.

university of kentucky professor karl raitz shows us the maze the road as part of a use of the underground railroad. >> the maysville road is important because it was one of the major routes into kentucky, into the west. the bluegrass was regarded as the most coveted land west of the appalachians still a lot of people were interested in moving here. a lot of people from virginia was land-grant here. this became the rahway from the north passage by which they came. henry clay was a sponsor of the american plan and part of the american plan was internal improvements.

you improve the economy by improving roads. he proposed that the maysville road from lexington to maysville be supported by federal government money to turn it into a hard surface turnpike, hard surface meaning stone covered and an engineered road rather than a mud track across the countryside. his argument was that it would serve a larger area and it would serve commercial traffic. andrew jackson and his literal interpretation of the constitution did not see the argument that way. he said that the constitution said that any project that was essentially local in nature could not be supported by federal money and so andrew jackson saw the road the 67 miles of it from lexington to the ohio river as a local project even though the turnpike signs that later are going to

list nashville tennessee and lawrence alabama on them suggests it's really regional road if not a national road to codas it ultimately would connect with new orleans. so we have two sides to the debate decided to seize the larger picture and sees maysville road is one section of a much larger highway that's going to connect the pittsburgh area with new orleans on the one side and a lateral interpretation of what they thought the constitution was calling for on the other side. we are the center of the village of mazelike and me slick is about as logical stopping point where far enough south of the ohio river so stagecoaches might want to water their horses were changed horses on the stagecoach line. this was going to be a very important farming area, some of

the richest land of the state of kentucky is in mason county. as we leave me slick and head south we will be on the section of the road that dates from the 1920s and 30s and right beside the road is going to be another small section of the old original limestone trace. it's called an alley now and it runs right in front of it well below the present road. there used to be many distances along the road. there would have than 15 to 18 taverns or enzi along the road. the tavern was built about 1806 as a rest stop, a tavern and overnight stay for people moving along the maysville road. there were between 15 and 18 taverns along the road between

maysville and lexington. this particular building the main building is on the left or the larger building which would have been the family home you'll notice the lower building to the right has two different doors to it. those would have been individuals towards come individual firms. you'll also notice there's a stairwell leading up to an attic area where there would have been another room so this building is a great treasure in the sense that it hits us a really good idea of how these taverns were erected and how they were placed along the road for easy access and then how they were spaced out in such a way that it made sense for stagecoach companies who needed new horses every 10 miles or so. if you look to your right, this would have been a mill site and

part of the old mill is still here. a tobacco warehouse right here. this became a major tobacco wholesaling center, auction center by about 1905, 1910. there would have been a major distillery standing right here and that's the old warehouse right there. that's all that's left. then we have kind of a tobacco row. here we have another tobacco warehouse. we have three vacant lots where there were tobacco warehouses all along. here's another one that still stands. it's now a nursery and you can see it's farmer's tobacco warehouse come -- company number one bear. there were a number of those on the other side of town that have been since torn down but each are in central kentucky. by about 1905 or 1910 where starting to become major auction centers for early tobacco and by

about 1925 lexington has become the largest early auction market in the world certainly in the united states. one of the least appreciated aspects of american history and american geography is the infrastructure that has been built to make all of this possible. none of this would be possible without roads. roads are the absolute back on him which a national economies built. nothing moves without roads. until you get the railroad, take it steamboats on the rivers everything is moving by road. if you are not connected to the road during pioneer times you are not connected. everybody when the trace was established and then when i was upgraded to a turnpike in the 1830s everybody wanted to have access to the roads because the minute you are connected. you are part of the economy not

only the regional economy but even the national economy. our merchant on main street and lexington could not have been selling chinese tea without the roads. the folks that read the book will have a much greater appreciation for the role of the road in people's lives. people established homes, people who established businesses people who were able to conduct business because of the roads. again the idea is don't take infrastructure the roads for granted. it's what's making your business possible next we hear from justin wedeking who investigated

every supreme court nominee since 1965. >> how would any member on this committee, any person in this room or any person in this country would like that said about him or her in this fashion oradist dirt dredged up and this gossip and these lies displayed in this manner likes how would any person like it? the supreme court is not worth it. no job is worth it. i'm not here for that. i'm here for my name, my family my life and my integrity. i think something is dreadfully wrong with this country when any person any person in this free country would be subjected to this. this is not a closed room. there was an fbi investigation.

this is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privacy or in a closed environment. this is a circus. it's a national disgrace. >> the book "supreme court confirmation hearings in the u.s. senate" reconsidering the charade. reconsidering the charade refers to the fact that one of our most recent nominees elena kagan wrote a piece when she was a law professor and allow ricky where she criticized the hearings and she called the hearings among other things a charade. she was -- for criticizing the hearings for the most part for them not working the way they should for nominees not really giving forthcoming answers. senators were more or less there to answer questions for the cameras and senators which is going very charade.

brown v. board of education was decided and prior to that position at nominees hearings before the senate judiciary committee were hit or miss. some nominees had hearings. some didn't some are open and some were closed and sometimes nominees didn't answer questions at these hearings but with that very controversial decision in 1950 for every nominee since then has come down to a hearing for the u.s. senate judiciary committee and what that means is they are going to get a much closer look at the nominees records their beliefs and it's very important because that nominee will have a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land. what we did was a look did was elected off the hearing transcript starting in 1955 all the way through 2010 taking the most recent hearing in that includes roughly 30 nominees who had appearances before the senate judiciary committee. what we did was line by line

analysis of all the hearings over 11,000 roughly lines and transcripts and what we did was we looked at exchanges between senators and nominees. exchange is a question by the senator and answered by the nominee. that counts and ex an exchange of or roughly 11,000 of those people we found by and large contrary to conventional wisdom that nominee's candor and the forthcoming this has not dramatically declined over the recent years. conventional wisdom as you may know suggest nominee -- declined declined. some people with her famous line so 1980s and 1998 era are what people argue should be the decline of the nominee candor candor candor. what we found dominic candor by and large was hovered around 60 to 80% drained the entire

timeframe. but we did find is the only real declined after post-bourke was a small modest decline that is attributed to questions that focused on civil rights and liberties of those are questions that people for the most part than to pay attention. a later chapter we focus on trying to look at what explains this myth, why is there this perception that people believe the hearings are working they get nominees are entering between 70 to 80% of the questions and we found by a margin of number of things that it changed about the hearings themselves senators are asking farmer questions today than there were many years ago. for example the most recent for nominees have faced several hundred questions. if you go back to the 1960s and byron white has faced nearly six questions so if far cry. we also find television itself

has changed the game and how the rules are structured. prior to sandra day o'connor the nominee hearings were described ready much as a free-for-all. senators may or may not show up to ask questions. the only people who witnessed what went on for the reporters who showed up to take notes and write a story the next day so by and large very few people knew what went on in the hearings unless unless they wouldn't read the transcript. that all changed with sandra day o'connor and all all the hearing center have been televised so by and large that gave senators a nationwide audience to ask questions and they could then speak to their constituents interests with those questions. what that did was it gave them a platform for picking issues that were important to constituents. they could speak of those issues as well and senators by and large when television comes into play becomes near-perfect. they'll want to ask questions

and they all want that camera time. there are several examples that really make the study of this memorable. thurogood marshall was a very good example of a hearing and an outlier in the sense that he was asked a tremendously large number of western's relative to those nominees around him. by and large it turned into what my co-author and i'd like to say this is dan irvine show. sam ervin more or less like to occupy all the hearings and ask question after question after question and what it amounted to us this was a quiz or test of thurogood marshall's knowledge, the first african-american nominee to the court during the height of the civil rights movement so there is a lot of opposition particularly from the southern senators as well. and just trying to trip him up as there were series of questions so that stuck out out in her mind as being one of the bigger moments in the hearing.

it was fairly contentious. thurogood marshall did a very good job of answering questions in a straightforward manner and not getting too involved in being too candid if you will. contrary to the obvious counterexample is robert bork. when he appeared before the court he thought this was an intellectual exercise for intellectual discussion to haggle about what should the constitution look like when they decide these cases? >> gave a lot of very poor scott scott -- forthcoming answers that i large scared a lot of people. >> the point as i see it judge bourke is talking about the rational basis test was to test the supreme court used for 100 years to deny equality for women and some years ago the court altered that to a bigger

standard to sex discrimination. as i understand the rational basis is the same test as he is in terms of economic regulations and pollution ordinances and you have restated earlier in your response to chairman biden that this is still your test where the court itself has moved to a much more bigamous standard to sex discrimination. >> i don't think in the case of gender senator that might test a my test which is the test of the court has been applying would come out that much different than an intermediate scrutiny standard. >> a lot of the answers he gave were characterized by senators outside by senators outside edges groups as being far outside the mainstream of american life and outside groups, that's where you see a lot of groups outside the court rallying support against the nominee. it happened before that but that's when the tidal wave that you will really hit. clarence thomas is probably most

memorable because he had to hearings that were very controversial. it is the controversy itself was the fact that he was replacing thurogood marshall on the pension thurogood marshall as most of you know was fairly liberal on most issues. clarence thomas being appointed by george h.w. bush was a fairly conservative judge and so there's a lot of controversy and concern that he would not be represented the same sorts of things that thurogood marshall stood for and then he went through his initial hearing without too much surprised and along comes anita hill with her allegations and added a whole second batch of hearings and that's where things become much less focused on his record as a judge and the personal relationships that he had. >> i think that this today is a travesty. i think that it is disgusting. i think that this hearing should

never occur in america and from my standpoint as a american as far as i'm concerned it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves and do for themselves to have different ideas and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order this is what will happen to you. >> one of the interesting findings we discovered with the advent of television was nominee senators are now basing their votes on different things and they were prior to tv. prior to tv we found that nominee candor actually influence how they voted. the more forthcoming the nominee was the more like they would vote in favor of him. however since television came

into play we find a nominee can no longer have a relationship with the how they what does that relationship with how they vote as the ideology of the senator enzi party attachment labeled so if it's a senator of the opposite party and the president they are much more likely to vote no nowadays than they were prior to that. prior to tv party attachment had no relationship with how they voted so we find television than in combination with the u.s. senate during the 70s and early 80s really plays a key role in terms of how that relationship has taken over. what we find is by and large contrary to what senator say about the forthcoming mess of nominees it really has no bearing or effect on how they vote. what makes our book different is the fact that they focused exclusively on the confirmation hearings themselves and simply how the senators and nominees interact and how forthcoming or

on forthcoming that nominees are themselves. very few on the hearings look at these angles. what people should take away from our study is by and large conventional wisdom is not entirely -- conventional wisdom was the hearing date to be fixed and our ankle is more or less that if the hearings are broken now than they have always been broken that nominee candor hasn't changed all that much in fact going back to the earliest hearings nominee candor at those hearings of 1955 are roughly the same as they are in the modern era. what has changed is the fact how the press covers them and also how the public responds to information about them. it's much more relevant today. there are many more new stories today and many more outside is interested with hard to go into

hearing about a supreme court confirmation hearing. speith technology in 1450. we are in the basement of the king library building on the university of kentucky campus and let the pen. we there are the king library press founded by carolyn palmer in 1956. carolyn had used a jobbing press sometimes called a clamshell president carolyn decided it would be interesting to bring her press to the library and get

librarians on their lunch hour to learn to print. this printing press is unique for a couple of reasons. it is one of a few library presses in the country, perhaps the only one. there are other university presses tied to the english department or the art department and different locations. we have a range of printing equipment that more or less covers the entire history of printing from our wooden, and press that would have been used in the beginning of printing in 1450 down to the 1820s when it was supplanted by iron flat presses. they were used until well probably are still in use in some parts of the world. they were supplanted by the button pressed in 1878 and then the new technology and the 1910

was the cylinder flat that cylinder press. we have examples of all those presses here. we have a printing history museum that is really working printing press. the press lots of ephemera broadside for the library and for other departments at the university. we always have at least one book and publication. we have to at the moment. we are in the process of printing a short lecture by john edgerton called the importance of the library and i'll put in, and presses are screw presses. so the person pulling the bar or the people pulling the bar do all the work. sometimes someone has to push on someone has to pull.

a small illustration and type. one person can really do it. open up the template again and the completed image. ellery findley is hand tenting cradled dolls which he had done long ago illustrated a little book and these are some of the dolls from the book. in and white there are charming line drawings but in color they become alive in a way they do not in and white. we usually set all of our own type by hand print by hand do the binding of the book or the selling of the pamphlet a

smaller piece all by hand. for the student body those who find their way here often become not only apprentices but take a three credit book arts courses so anyone if they are interested learn to be competent in the book art, make a book. during booktv's recent visit to lexington kentucky we spoke with maryjean wall author of "how kentucky became southern" about cultural changes in the state following the civil war. >> they are ready for the sun. they are off. >> what people don't realize is kentucky nearly lost to the horse business at the highest levels at one time and this was after the civil war for a generation when it went up east. it was a case of there have

always been forces here and fast horses here thoroughbreds and kentucky bred the highest number of them but the big money went up north to new york and new jersey after the civil war because that's where the industrialists were. that is where they financiers, s., the stock market where there's -- wizards were. was a crazy or when people are making fortunes. there was the income tax than they were getting rich. they were displaying their wealth with racing stables. so these people like augusto for whom belmont park is named and other wealthy persons instead of coming down here and having their horse farm here they were building them in long island or in west very or cross river new jersey and what was kentucky doing it? kentucky had the most famous and

prolific breeding stallion whose name was lexington but they didn't have much else. they didn't have a huge amount of money here. these were agriculturalists and industrial money always trumped agricultural money. industrial money is not here. why was i coming down here to buy horse farms? these vast fortunes? because kentucky was a very lawless, dangerous place to be and even the new york times was warning against capitalists investing in kentucky because of it's pretty tarnished reputation for a lot of lawless evil deeds. so these men built their farms close by to where they lived and actually they could get over there and see their horses easily. they went to these farms to escape the pressures of work and enjoy themselves for perhaps an afternoon off. it took a major turn in the way

kentucky's identity was viewed by outsiders and insiders as well, local ones for the force firms to start moving down here and that did not begin to occur until i would say about 1915 at least and then we became known as southern. that's when they distort turn occurred. we were westerners. we were not southerners and people will say i see these houses with columns on the front. they look antebellum southern and the whole idea of the kentucky derby is a quote unquote southern event with southern belles and people wearing big hats that we were known as the western region. that was her reputation from pioneer days when people began to move westward. kentucky became a state in 1792 and it was on the western frontier at the time so that's

how kentucky was none. you don't see daniel boone pictures in people's imaginations as a southern gentleman, the stereotype of a southern colonel. he is a guy wearing frontier clothing and that's how people viewed us at the time. he came to kentucky either to settle here or to move farther west. why did they start looking at us as southern? i think a good part about was that at the time southern plantation literature fiction was very popular. people were going through a nostalgic turn about a generation after the civil war. everybody is reading writers like john fox junior who is from kentucky and he is writing about this gentile southern place here and affixing that image of southerners and people's imaginations. kentuckians were quite glad to

go along with that and at the same time the northern money men like the industrialists, bankers, but doc market investors they were most happy to buy into that notion of kentucky were central kentucky being southern because at this point they are looking for an escape from their lives which would become very troubled. ..