>> fascination, threats of violence, people try to dual in some places. alexander hamilton is saying different thing ins philadelphia than he says in the noosew york convention and one of the other delegates from new york is at the convection and says hamilton in philadelphia you wanted to destroy the states and now you are celebrating the role of the state and hamilton said i resent that. people think they will end up in a dual in the summer of 1788. they manipulate the accounts in the newspaper quoting some

things and leaving some things out. it is just like modern politics. you don't think of the constitution that way but it is just a thoroughgoing debate where both sides use whatever methods seem likely to win. >> i think on that note, we will leave it there. but thank you so much. the american revolution is reborn and frontier country, thank you michael klarman. good talking to you. >> we want to hear from you. tweet us. twitter.com/booktv or facebook.com/booktv. >> welcome to authors voice a

virtual book signing network. i am daniel wineberg and we are here in the abe lincoln bookstore. we talk utbooks pertaining to the u.s. civil war and presidents. visit our bookshop at our website. we stream live on all our favorite digital devices featuring book authors another viewers in every jgenera. fiction, historical fiction, mystery. we have had people like wesley clark and thor goodman and many others over the last 11 years.

today you are watching house divided dedicated to lincoln and civil war presidents in history. we are live on author's voice so while we are send in your questions and give us your name and where you are from so we can acknowledge you. if you are new to us, give us your e-mail so you are not going to miss future authors so that you, your family, kids and friends will not miss authors they would like to see and interact with. we offer signed first editions of our author's books. please use our website for an order form and build yourself a fine library for you and your family. today we welcome c-span once again and if you are watching it on c-span i am sorry to say you cannot leave a live question but you can go to our archive and go to previous shows and you can watch the 11 years of what we

have done and perhaps there will be signed first editions still available. today, we are very proud to welcome peter cozzens. this is not the first time peter has been with us. he walked into our shop as a 15-year-old interested in civil war and now look at you peter. >> that was just three years ago. >> you are a retired service officer. in 2002, you were awarded the william r ripkin award which is the american foreign service associations highest honor for moral courage, integrity. he is the author or editor of 16 brooks on the american civil war and indian war. among them chattanooga, biography of john polk, and he added to the original battles of

leaders from 1887-88 with his battle of the civil war volume six and seven. he has written the eyewitnesses to the indian wars published in five volumes and stone wall jackson valley campaign as well. peter's latest book is "the earth is weeping" the epic story of the indian wars and the american west. it is 544 pages. well illustrated with numerous details map. it is $35. this is a true historical page turner, peter. you still keep a lot of actors and places and actions understandable across a vast

geographical area and time. by the way, we were talking just before and here we are first editions of your book. i tell people first editions are not scarce but second is. yours is going into second printing. how did the book come back? is it a natural extension to the eye witnesses of the indian wars? how did you drive the title? >> my work is derived from the research on john pope. he was dismissed after being sent to fight indians and i discovered he had an important role in the indian wars and more importantly he had extraordinarily humanitarian views of the indians and the plight of the indians.

very sympathetic to them. i found that remarkable the empathy they had for the indians and their circumstances. that led me into the indian wars. the title is not a quote. it is from my own imagination. but it derives from -- you will find various combinations of lyr lyrics in indian songs that we use. of course, mother earth, sad, weeping, all three reflect their

detearating condition. >> host: your book gives a balanced view between life and the indians. what resources were of particular value when researching this book? >> guest: i will speak of the indian side. the white sources are more apparent. memories, reports, letters. on the indian's side there were a number of ethnographers who took testimony from indian lawyers while they were young enough to recall what occurred and those provided a rich resource. also, congressional documents. it seemed like any time anyone sneezed in the west during the post indian war congress called a hearing. quite often they invited indian chiefs to come out and testify

before congress to present their point of view. that was another rich source. there have been memoirs on a number of indians that were taken down while they were still alive that have been published in recent years. i was able to find enough credible, vivid sources of indian participants at all levels to tell a story i believe right down the middle 50-50. >> host: you have wonderful maps in this book that really help the reader. certainly helped me as i went through the book. can you give me an overview of the indian population and the tribes in the west? what do they look like? where did they come from in fact? what were the people of the

western indian plains especially. >> guest: i will speak of the period from 1865-66 when the narrative proper begins in the book. there is -- it is estimated the total indian population in the west was approximately 250,000 and 75,000 resided on the plains and the rest in the southwest and northwest and california. the principle tribe idea was from the book and those are going from north to south on the plains. the nation known as the sioux, the seven tribes of the sioux. the northern cheyenne. the arapaho. the comanche. the apache in the southwest.

in the northwest the nez perce and nordack of northern california. and among the tribes that were friendly to the governor the rocky mountains and the crow of the northern plains and the pawnee of the central plains figure most prominent. the tribes of the plains there was a lot of -- in the, oh, let's say 150-200 years before the action begins in the book there was a lot of jockeying among the tribes and plains. the cheyenne and arapaho and all these tribes pushed west by expanding white settlement of the united states and then they clashed with the tribes native to the plains and pushed them away and occupied the lands that have come to be associated with

them. >> host: what are those called? the indigenous? >> guest: the black hills where there is a source of tension. some went some and united with the comanche on the southern plains. other tribes were pushed further north or were decimated almost to extinction by small pox and other white man's diseases. >> host: you mention in the book there was one set of immigrants displacing another set. >> guest: that is one of my principle thesis. that dawned on me in the course of my research when i realized in fact the cheyenne and the tribes we associated most closely with the great plains were relatively newcomers themselves.

they had been on the plains for 150 years at most. so it was one wave of immigrants displacing another one. >> host: the basic theme running through your book, first of all, there are basic misconceptions we have all had about the armies and the indians especially the government policy of extermination and indians, who you are mention, didn't stand up against the white settlers coming at them. >> guest:. i believe there are no areas

steep in myth than this period. this theology has guided the public's perception on the wars for the first 80 odd years after the indian wars the perception was that of the army is sort of shining white light and indians as bad cardboard cutouts that foil to the army and the government. and then in 1970, it was the opposite direction which buried my heart on wounded knee and told the story from the perspective of the victims. it has been a pendulum swinging.

>> host: our man, lincoln, presided over the war with the sioux in minnesota uprising. in the late 1980's, i had a spoon that had the hanging of those 26 indians together out of the 300 plus that were going to be hanged lincoln did pardon all the others except those 26 who were hanged. was this the spark for the war that followed? >> guest: before i answered. one point to our last question. i want to mention what i consider to be the three biggest myth. one the army was hell-bent on killing indians. that is not the case. two, that the government policy as you suggest was extermination. it wasn't in any sense of the

world and thirdly that the indians were united. they were divided among themselves within tribes and also continued to fight tribal warfare throughout the period. what was the question on the minnesota uprising? was that the spark? >> host: really in the middle of the civil war. >> guest: what it did was make westerners a lot less tolerant of indians in their myth and a lot more suspicious and a lot more willing to treat the slightest provocation as perhaps pretending general uprising. in fact, it was in that poisoned atmosphere in the months after the minnesota uprising that san creak occurred. that reaction was so dramatic in part because of the fear fed by

the minnesota uprising. >> host: let's get into some of the internal conflicts. over and over again there were internal conflicts i saw on both sides which surprised me how divisive they were within these groups. both the army and the indians had those divisions especially with the indians between those who were ready to have peaceful settlements and those who wanted to resist aggressively. explain these divisions please. >> guest: there was no tribe that fought the government or the army that was ever fully united for peace. it really boiled down to a question of whether a particular faction, whether the indians

believed that resisting the whites was in fact a policy that had any chance of success whether it was futile and they were better off trying to accommodate and culture. the government had a policy of bringing chiefs to washington, d.c. to sort of over law them with the power of the whites. chief came back from washington, d.c. after travelling across the country and realized their small tribes of 3-4,000 people stood no chance in the long run. these chiefs would often become the heads of the peace factions and seek accommodation as the only possible way of surviving. and the only time there was

inimty was during that time. >> host: lincoln was in the black hawk war if you can call it that. only three months and that was it. but at the end of it they brought black hawk to the east the same way. he went back and stayed peaceful after that. they brought him up to eastern coast to be seen in baltimore and philadelphia. andy jackson was going up at the same time on a political tour and black hawk was bringing more team to him than jackson. did people come out in droves to see the indian chiefs? >> guest: at first.

in fact, my book beginwise -- begins with a conference between lincoln and chiefs. after their tour of washington, d.c. including the union fortifications and so forth, barnham arranged a deal and it sold out. after a while, they became revolving door and the novelity war or. >> host: if you are having

buffer issues with your browser close and open your browser and select the slow team. the were always intertribal conflicts that kept them from having unity. there were some of course that tried that like the sioux and the cheyenne were together a number of times. was this the major or one of the major aspects of the defeat of the indians that they could not unify against the common threat? >> guest: yeah, it expedited their defeat. the problem arose from the nature of indian society in the west. it was a warrior culture. a young man could not even court a girl, look for a wife, until he accumulated war honors.

war honors that were obtained at the expense of white soldiers were not considered to be nearly as worthwhile as those taken from combat with other indians. again it was bred in the culture. and this intertribal conflict continued throughout the course of the indian wars. so a lot of the sioux were facing threats from white minors or settlers on the one hand. at the same time, they were trying to push the crow further west out of their country. the tribes were never quite able to focus their attention entirely to the white threat. >> host: was this the same in the far northwest? >> guest: not so puch. things were pretty settled

there. tribes like the nez purse had been in their home were a long time. there was some of that but less pronounced. >> host: let's talk about warriors versus sold areas. indians were brave and hardened but loosely organized but seemed to be better warriors. the whites were well-trained and less qualified than those during the civil war and poorly officered. what happened for the army to fall? why did the army evolve from the civil war and those to the west were not up to the same standards we have read about? same with the indians. what sort of warriors were there and how dud they organize their

campaigns? >> guest: the volunteer army that fought the civil war died down and the army was determined to pay charges back. they dwindled down to 30,000 by the time of little big horn. they decreased the incentive to join the army. the pay of a private soldier during the indian war was less than that during the civil war with. with the exception of the financial panic of 1873, there were really no incentives to enlist in the army. literally most who did enlist ended up deserting as quickly as possible. there were desertion rates as

high as 85%. men came west at the expense of the government and deserted it the first opportunity to go work in the gold mines, or to startup on their own. in fact, the army was more concerned about loosing equipment than manpower. you had a low quality of enlisted men and promotion opportunities were so slow. promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel were within a regimen and the lieutenant coming out west at the start of the indian wars after the civil war, i forget the exact amount of time, but you could expect to wait upwards of 25 years before making major. in fact, someone in the arm army-navy journal commented in a

few years we will have an officer core too old to fight. training was non-existent. there were no specific training facilities like we have today. you went to a so-called training d depot and immediately sent to your regimen. there was no time or budget. the warriors on the other hand boys were raised from childhood to become warriors. that was their culture and way of life. one army colonel called them the best natural calvary in the entire worldism >> host: we have true artifacts and here is one of them. the journal of army life that rodney glycin wrote although this is prior to your book army

life must have been awful. you are talking about the desertion rates. so did it remain that throughout the war? >> guest: throughout the indian wars. this is better on the frontier during the civil war. during the civil war, the army posts in the west were allowed to fall into disrepair and general sherman went on tour of the west and wrote a scathing condition of the posts. he made one comment to paraphrase saying if the press were to see -- if blackov black overseers had kept their conditions in as filthy and miserable there would have been backlash.

one had to shovel their barracks before settling in. troops had to sleep on the playground because the barracks were so rickety they might fall over. it was atrocious. >> host: kevin costner reminded me of this. did any of these people go desert or nato? george cook did in some extent. >> guest: i know of no case of army officers going desert or incognito. there are a handful of cases of soldiers one in particular during the conflict on the southern plains the indians were believed to have fought, directed by bugle calls and the bugler was believed to be a

deserter from one of the black buffalo soldier units. >> host: we had ron white in here just a week ago with his wonderful book on grant. and we have a question from mar marise jeffries from louisville, kentucky. you can go to authorsvoice.net with watch the interview we had. it is really wonderful and this a spectacular book that leads into this and this question. thank you, maurice jeffries from louisville, kentucky. what were the underlying reasons for grant convening the secret meeting at the white house? the panic of 1873 and the need for cash that gold in the black hills would bring?

or pressure from sherman and others? gran we learned in ron's book he was the first president to bring up indian rights in this inauguration. >> guest: the answer is the former. perhaps this gentlemen read an article i wrote for the smithsonian magazine. he provoked to sioux war that led to little big horn. his rational was he wanted the black hills for the mineral health. and chief black hills were on the reservation and it was promised to the lakota indians

and what evidence there is is damming. it is impossible to skip the decision this is grant's thinking. and the question of choosing between the electorate and the needs of the nation during a continued economic depression. the thinking was if we provoke a war the lakota's residing off the reservation but still on land promised to them. speaking of the bands that followed sitting bull and crazy horse we can defeat them and that would put pressure on reservation chiefs to sell the black hills to the government and we can mine them for all they were worth. >> host: the peace policy was

changed and he decide to become more aggressive like sherman and sheridan wanted him to be. what changed him? >> guest: fundamentally, the peace policy continued as the official policy with the best of intentions by president grant really up until the whole question of the black hills arose. that is what did it. it wasn't the case of gradually falling as so much of it ending with this secret ball in the white house as a means to provoke a war the lakota. >> host: how did the press get into this? i have here a warren pestler.

this is really from the black hawk war but at the same time this pamphlet really did provoke the populus against the indian. what was the role of it press in those days? they were following the army as they went along? >> guest: the press was there. correspondents traveled with the army or if a conflict developed they would flock to the scene of the conflict and the accounts of the correspondents and they were often interviewing to indian participants as well. one of the best accounts i had of what was called hancox war was a series of dispatches to the missouri republican by henry

morton stranger who was with a new york paper. the press was ubickitoquitouubi. >> host: when you talk about humanitarians in the east. dd they have that influence? >> guest: they had a huge influence. in fact, the quakers in particularly were influential in grant developing a peace policy. he turned over a large number of native americans. the ironic thing about all this is the eastern humanitarians in their desire to save the indians they saw nothing worthwhile in

indian culture worth saving. they were agents of cultural genocide just as much as the government was. they subscribed to prevailing condition of indians had to be christianized and concentrated on reservations for indians to survive. the humanitarians had a paternalistic view of the indians. they wanted to save them but not their culture. >> host: they had this but were not influenttial enough to do much more, i guess. >> guest: they were not influential enough to stop the conflict and a lot of times they were sympathetic with the

conflict. it is hard to generalize but the influence of the humanitarians really came front and center after most of the fighting was over in terms of okay, now the fighting is winding down. we have most of the indians on the reservations. that is where the humanitarians stepped in full force. >> host: another internl conflict between the water defarment v apartment and bureau of indian affairs. that went on throughout the book bickering over indian policy and the eye ring being part of this. did they influence public opinion as well? what was that contest and bickering between them? >> guest: absolutely. it was over control of the indian affairs. the army saw the indian bureau as hopelessly corrupt. this was the standing joke of

the stay an indian chief said to general sherman you know our indian agent is great man. when he comes he brings all his belonging and when he leaves he takes two steamboats to carry them away. so much corruption. and the army was well aware of this. they railed against it. the indian bureau, their counterargument which lacked a certain mount of moshl basis, but they -- moral -- argue the army was decivilizing the influence on the indians if that is a word. the water department was interest in conflict and they were not the appropriate home for the bureau of indian affairs when in fact the opposite was

the case. as general john pope said we have no interest in provoking war. indian war means hardship, separation from our families and all we love and cherish. the army did not want these wars and that was an ongoing issue throughout the indian wars as well. >> host: we have a question from norvel. you are also giving us questions and thank you very much. based on your massive indian war study how does general cook compare to general nelson miles? i look at the encyclopedia on the civil war all the time. >> guest: miles was probably the

most ambitious but there was an intense rivalry. in a nutshell, miles for all his ambition and backstabbing of fellow officers was uniformly humane and just in his treatment of defeated indians. whereas cook talked a good game, he enjoys a reputation of being humane in his treatment of indians. at the end of the day, he too was sympathetic and larger times siding with the indians in terms of who was a better commander it is difficult question to answer because fighting the indians also involved diplomacy and politics and managing them after defeating. but if i had to i would give a

slight edge to nelson miles. george cook performed miserable during the great sioux war. >> host: there are so many conflicts, and actions and tribes and officers and men that populate this book that all we can do is put the spotlight on a view of them and hope you at home will read the full book. that is the way to understand that. our technical staff asked me to say we have experiencing streaming issues. the low band is having technical problems. those of you on the archive will see the entire show. come to the archive at authorsvoice.net.

the higher speed is working well now. so if you are experiencing problems you can watch the program in its entirety on youtube. i want to ask you about indians that helped the army. p pawnees were some of those and the crows. could the civil war have succeeded without them? >> guest: it would have taken a lot longer. the role of indian scouts was decisive in almost every conflict in the book. most particularly in tracking down hostile apaches.

the army used apaches to fight apaches. without the apache, geronimo might still be in northern mexico. the pawnee for example, if you watch hell on wheels, you never come away with this realization had it not been for a unit called pawnee battalion, two companies oof pawnee who try to stop the non-stop raids on the survey and construction crews of the union pacific, had the pawnee battalion not existed and giving a drugging to the lakota war parties i estimate it would

have taken a year or longer for the transcontinental railroad to be completed. this would not have happened nearly as quickly without them to give one example of how important they were. >> host: i was struck as a student of the black hawk wars how much the policies were the same. everything is the same west as well as east. with the black hawk they were lead minors and fairly settled to some extent. those lead mines is what brought the whites to them and kick them out. here we were, same thing with mineral rights in the dakotas and elsewhere in the west is whites wanted the land for mineral rights. part of that is because of the panic that occurred and certainly that was part of the

problem that everyone was looking for gold, for instance, to help the economy out east. >> guest: that pre-dated the 1873 and post-dated the california gold rush. gold was a great disposes of indian land. it was gold in northern california and southern oregon that led to conflicts there. it was gold in arizona and new mexico that led to conflict with the apaches. gold, gold, gold. every time there was a major gold strike, dispossession of indian land followed a pace. absolutely. gold or silver. >> host: are we weeping the same

thing today with pipelines? out west we are having that problem today. >> guest: exactly. >> host: todd from albany asked please talk about the use of alcohol on the indian and the other side. >> guest: it is one of the longer index industries in the bock. alcohol was used on both sides. it -- the officer core was rampant with alcoholics. i devote a couple pages just to the use of alcohol in general among the soldiers and the officers. the most famous case is little big horn who was drunk throughout the battle and was so drunk he could not even defend at little big horn.

and indians in the entire villages would fall pray to alcohol and be on constant long-term binges. it was a real destabilizing unfortunate influence among the indians and ever present in the army as well. george custer was one of the few t tea drinkers in the army. >> host: was the winter the time that the army tried to displace the indians because they were in their -- >> guest: on the plains in particular. you brought up the apaches and it wasn't the same out there.

>> guest: no, because they lived in temporary shelters as opposed to the plains tribes who would settle into well-sheltered river bottoms that provided a good source of water. they would set-up their lodges for the winter and their ponies would grow gaunt, their mobility would become virtually non-existent and they were sitting ducks so to speak. that evolved quickly as the army's choice time of year to launch indian campaigns. the army faced great challenges and some of the campaigns took place in 30-40 degrees below temperatures. it was cold. these poor guys were out with frozen canned beans and frozen

meat and falling on your horse if you were not revived at once almost certain meant death. but the indians were stationary. they never expected to be attacked in the dead of winter. they believed winder to be their best ally. even though battles like the washits the indians never quite able to come to terms with the vulnerability. they didn't have any way around it. they had to hunker down for the winter. >> host: mentioning washits, custer was there. it was a very lop sided battle and you absolve him from that battle. people like big teen that

everyone knows from the big horn battles was slow to help custer. first of all talk about why you absolve him and did big teen hold a grudge at little big horn and go too slowly to try to help custer? >> guest: the washits was not a massacre. it was a battle. custer was following the strategies laid out by general sheridan following the tactic the army decided on which was attacking the villages during the winter. he outnumbered the black pedals village enormously. he had nearly 800 men and black kettle had 60 warriors. he was the peace chief but there were warriors in his village who had participated on raids in kansas settlements.

rapes and murders in kansas. custard issued strict orders and unlike little big man custer meant it. he issued orders against killing women and children but those deaths were inevitable. when you went into the villages with women and children it was inevitable some would day. there were cases of women picking up weapons and fighting the calvary. when custer heard one of his companies were firing on women he sent a courier to put a stop to it at once. custer never intended to make war on non combatants but it was

inevitable. to say custer was out to kill civilians was wrong. it was not massacre. a massacre is a one-sided intentional killing of people who are unable to defend themselves and that was not the case. custer lost more men at the washits than warriors were lost. >> host: was there a connection with been teen? >> guest: he road off on his own hook to chase indians and became separated and by the time custer was aware of his departure custer himself was in danger of being surrounded by a superior source of indians so he had to make tracks and he could not hang around and look for major elliot.

and been teen blamed custer ever after. he had a chip on his shoulder because he was demoted from colonel to captain and he could he was a better officer than custard and perhaps better than anyone else. he had quite an ego. i don't believe that cause came to rise solely at little big horn. he had been sent on custer as what he thought was a fools mission. he believed custer did it to reap the glory for himself. but once he became aware of the fighting he picked up the pace. >> host: you talk a full story of custard and many meme know of it but in the civil war you write custard instinctively knew

when to charge forward or stay stea stea stea steady fast. what happened there? did he have the desire to get into politics? >> guest: at the time he broke free at the yellow stone river and began the three-day ride looking for the indians the best intelligence was the seventh calvary would outnumber them. this caused the strength to grow to over as many as 2,000 within the course of the week. custer wasn't aware of that. even his scouts believed there were only a few hundred warriors.

he had discretion of orders. he was encouraged once he found the indians to give battle to them because everyone realized how difficult it was once you find them to engage. if the past were any indication the indians would break camp and flee. he was operating under the best intelligence they had at the time. we could spend an hour on this but his actions -- i fault him only for his actions with soldiers. >> host: talk briefly about the indian agents. is that across the board. is that how we should view the

indian agents sphthey did take advantage of their post? there were some who were upright and had the indian's best interest in mind but they were not the majority. there was a period during grants administration when he turned over some of the crucial agencies on the plains and they ran agencies honestly but often times displayed an incredible nav tay when it came to dealing with the indians. there were instances in which the army was given control from time to time and they ran the agencies well and honestly.

in general, indians preferred army officers as agents over civilians because the army officer -- if an army officer committed m committed treason they would be excision -- commissioned. >> host: eli grant is in this. and once he wrote out the terms of surrendered that were signed by lee and grant and he had a beautiful hand as well. he was placed as an indian commissioner, a sinica indian. what was the role of the indian commissioner briefly? did they have any influence in all of this? >> guest: the commissioner of the bureau of indian affairs oversaw all relations with

tribes that were non-hostile tribes. they -- there were a handful of corrupt indian commissioners that were locked in the scandal as well. even the best intended like parker believed the indians only future lay in culture. >> host: we haven't gotten into all the battles. there are so many of them and written with real narrative so we want to turn the page and hear about another one and what happened.

what brought me to it was there was a new there as well. he was charged with killing indians and a coyote that fed the starving soldiers next to them. and general fry later wrote a poem in 1893 to him. this is one part when the foe charges with madness and despair and the bravest stores are tested a little jew is there. a little patronizing but he was there and made his mark. feature island was a fascinating battle. what was its influence? >> it is interesting you said soldiers. they were not soldiers. they were actually civilian scouts. kind of a ranger force of

civilian scouts that sheridan got up because they were inept at fighting the indians when they were able oo move. he thought who better to fight them than experienced plainsman. he recruited 60 plainsman. they found them and were outnumbered 10-1 besieged as beacher island and survived barely. >> host: barely. are there any controversies in the wars out west that you feel are still controversy? that you have not been able to decide one way or the other what happened? is there any one or two that come to mind? maybe none?

>> guest: no, not really. and i am not trying to sound at all arrogant. .... there is a museum that you talked about prior to the show that you feel everyone should go to. >> the buffalo bills center of the american west in wyoming. i can't recommend highly enough and if you go to the yellowstone it's worth the extra hour and 50

minutes. it's a remarkable place. it's one museum dedicated to buffalo bills and the weapon collection in the united states and then a western arts museum dedicated to the planes into tribes. it's absolutely superb. so if you want a museum with a feeling of the west in general, that is a place to go. >> host: i'm going to put you to work while i talked to the audience. first of all, such a book difficult to be able to get into everything. i was looking at some of the things i wanted to ask. we were talking about wounded in the and the legend there at the

time and the red cloud and sitting bull that we haven't gotten to. some of the strategies we certainly have not talked about the armaments that you speak about in depth and also the indian chiefs that were there and what the chief was and what they meant. so, i really encourage you to do this. here is a book up for the pulitzer. you will have the first edition signed copy as well.

you sat down on or after words program to discuss his book three days in january which looks at the exchange of power from president dwight eisenhower to president john kennedy. he's joined in conversation by president eisenhower's granddaughter. >> host: it's great to be with you. thanks for the opportunity to talk about your terrific book. >> guest: thanks. it is an honor to be sitting with you after having spent the last three and a half years studying your grandfather. >> adorable children that were