my pastor years ago but his son was ac-130 pilot and crashed and the whole crew died. .. >> i will be reading that. it will take a long time because it is a pretty thick book. most times that is my reading, if i'm not reading bills that is what i am reading. >> book tv wants to know what you're reading. send us your summer reading list via twitter book tv, or

instagram at book -underscore tv, or poster tour facebook page, facebook.com/book tv. book tv on c-span2, television for serious readers. >> and book tv is on location on the campus of ucla. were talking to professors who are also authors and history professor is our guests. she is the co-author of this book "the american war, the history of the civil war era". joan, 1850, give us a snapshot of the united states. >> guest: 1850 was the first year of the decade that brought on the secession crisis led to the civil war. 1850 was the year that california came in to the union. 1850 was also the year that a compromise was forged, it was the last great compromise, they did not know it then, but we

know it now that save the union. it was a compromise forged by the north and the south. that involved a number of major changes to the way territories would come into the united states and involved the passage of the new fugitive law act. another compromises that neither side, north or south, pro free labor or slave labor was happy about. but, to preserve the union for the to modulus decade to come. >> host: what was accomplished question. >> guest: the compromise of 1850. the specifics included introducing the idea of organizing territory that came into the united states from the mexican war.

under the doctrine of popular sovereignty. that just meant that people of this or that territory, when they were ready to come into the union they could decide for themselves whether they would be a free or slave state. the first state that would come in, the first territory that would come in that way would be the kansas territory in 1854. it led to what was called in history, the little civil war. >> host: now 1850, that compromise preserved the union. >> guest: i could say that it preserve the union, yes at that time. there were other compromises that preserve the union, the compromise of 1820 for example. the compromise that was maybe to the founding fathers when they came to write the u.s. constitution. all of these compromises over

slaver were integral to keeping america together as a country, the northern and southern sections. it was something that northerners who are antislavery do not like, it was something that southerners who are proslavery did not like. but, in order for the country to maintain its stability, integrity, that comprise had to be made. we would find in the 1850s all of the compromises ever made including the one in 1850 did not work. the republican party was born in the wake of the controversy over the compromise of 1850 and that nebraska compromis controversy . all these things led one after another, is quite a decade. >> host: someone say that this

delay the inevitable, rather than save the union. >> guest: we would say that if we are looking back as people who live in the 21st century. we don't know. one of the things historians have the obligation to do is to teach her students to take the path on its own terms. in other words, they did not know what was going to happen in 1850, they didn't know what was going to happen in 1860 at the beginning of the war, who would one. we already know. so we put in the past what we think should have happened, or probability, but we should not do that. we should just try to understand the past on its own terms. >> host: one of the things you writing your book "the american war", the south had wielded disproportionate in the united states. the two think that's true. if you look at the first

president accepting the adams, most in the 18th and 19th century, most of them, washington being the principal one, jefferson, madison, munro, and so on were slaveholders. it was the executive branches wielded disproportionate power. for most of the time the whigs did not win the presidential election, the second major party. so it was the southerners who held the power, often in the senate. that started to change in the 1850s. it started to change for a variety of reasons. the southerners felt threatened by that. >> host: looking back to the 1850s, was there a time in that decade when you can say we could have prevented the civil war?

>> guest: i think there were several points at which the civil war could have been prevented. but, one of the points really was with the issuance of the dred scott decision in 1857 in which the supreme court went beyond what it needed to do and declared that blacks were never citizens and can never be citizens. and the united states federal government had no right to stop slavery from going into any territory. that is really one decision that might have at least arrested the civil war and given people more time. i really do think of politicians in the 1850s and certainly in the late 1860s in washington, did not realize how angry the electorate was.

especially misjudged the fire eating sentiment in the south. when they did realize that perhaps it was too late. >> host: economically and population rise, the north and the south, what were they like in the 50s? >> guest: well, in the 50s you had the spectacle of a very well integrated successful economy. you have the cotton economy fueling the lives of manufacturing and many other great aspects of a surging economy at this point by 1850. the growth was phenomenal. but, the very success that was present in the economic system of the country which worked very well together, you have to remember that northerners

benefited from the slave economy. northern banks and investment companies benefited from the slave economy. it was part of the international economic structure as well. but, the very success of it, the spread of the southern the desire for both sections to expand in the western territory brought free labor versus slave labor to a friction point. that is the remarkable story in itself. how it became such an issue for slaveholders that they felt it wasn't really about being able to establish, plantations and can't kansas which was not going to happen, or the nebraska territory, it was about the security of this amazingly successful plantation system for

the states where it already existed. >> host: professor, you alluded to this, often we look at history through the eyes of the elites and the people who write the history. what about most citizens in this country? were they aware of the issues that were being face? >> guest: you are speaking of people in the 19th century. yes, they were. we know this because we have studied the elections, we have studied the way politicians appeal to their electric. and yes, people were aware. but, they are also not expecting to fight the civil war. they did not know that. they knew something was wrong and something had to be fixed, but they knew about compromise, they knew they were these groups both in the north and south that

we could describe as radical, the southern fire eaters, those who push for success and well before it became embraced by a majority of southerners and abolitionists in the north. but, i believe that most people are pretty much living their lives as we americans have always lived it. they're interested in the economy, they're interested in making sure their children had a better life than they did, education. they're also interested in other political issues such as the tariffs, such as the scandals that were plaguing the buchanan administration from 1856 - 1860. there were a lot of things going on. >> host: james we can and is often at the bottom of all list of the ranking president. >> guest: deservedly so.

you cannot imagine a more prepared man to be president than james buchanan. and in 1856 he had been a politician, a minister abroad, he was well known and well respected. he brought to the office the hope with his election that he could calm things down. nothing was calm down. the way he conducted his administration was to alienate everybody and he certainly did that and he brought the country to a greater intensity of dislike for each other, instead of pacifying. >> host: abraham lincoln have been present one month or so before south carolina seceded. prior to that during the buchanan administration they had to be grinding toward that, didn't they?

>> guest: the buchanan administration was in power until march 4. they had to deal with the secession of the first seven southern states in the lower south. they had to figure out what would be the position that would take. the position during that was called the secession winter was that we should do everything we can to encourage the upper southern states, virginia, north carolina and tennessee, for example to stay in the united states. how could we do that by encouraging the union which was very strong. there were a number of compromises put forward at this time and among them was the

first 13th amendment. do you know about that amendment? you don't. that was the amendment that had the support of southern union nest, and many northern politicians, including men that would be considered abolitionists politicians but who believed, as most northerners did, there is nothing that the north could do to stop slavery in the south because it was constitutionally protected. they wanted to prevent its extension the western territories. this amendment, the first 13th amendment was floated and i gradually became coalescing around this amendment which would guarantee in perpetuity slavery's existence in the states where it existed. it would be the 13th amendment you could never abolish slavery. abraham lincoln supported it. james buchanan signed off on it,

and congress passed it. i believe three states began the process. by that time fort sumter hapten. the story of the 13th amendment is a story that should remind us not to assume things about the past that is more our particular interest and believe. there you have it. there were a lot of people who are willing to stop a war they did not want, they knew would bring great destruction and sadness and tragedy to this country. they almost did it, but they didn't. >> host: you reference southern union nest, what percent of the population supported stain in the union, or vice versa, supported going to work? >> guest: in the south i would say the upper southern states at the beginning of the secession

crisis wanted to stay in the union of slavery could be preserved in some way. if they could be guaranteed that the safety of this institution which was a seat of their economic prosperity. virginia turned out secession. other states did too. they didn't want to do it unless they they were forced. that is why fort sumter was so important. the whole issue for them is that there would be no coercion to keep the seven original states that formed a new nation of the confederate states of america. to threaten them. with force some nerd, that was all gone. >> host: who are the fire eaters as you reference them in south carolina that made fort sumter happen, made south carolina happen? >> guest: the fire eaters in south carolina, now a blanking on the names of course. >> host: why south carolina?

>> guest: south carolina was a unique state in the union. actually in colony. from the very beginning it had a black majority. from the beginning south carolina politicians and their leaders, the islamist leaders were absolutely i think you could call it frantic and frenetic about preserving the safety of slavery. whenever any threat was issued, and this came up in the 1790s, it will come up in the congressional debates in the 1820s, it will come up in the mexican war debates, it will come up in the compromise of 1850 controversy. so, they were always the ones that provided the seedbed of

secessionists. now, we associate the theory of secession and its flawless depiction going forward was south carolina politician, john c calhoun. he certainly was the leader and i think the inspiration for many other southern fire eaters who saw secession as the only logical way to preserve what they were increasingly coming to call their country. what you had here by the eve of the civil war, in terms of how the confederate states of america viewed itself were two nationstates in the 19th century each of whom have a legitimate reason to exist. that was the way that you have to understand the build up to secession, the drumbeat for secession by these men who are prepared for it when it did come

and were able to get that large section of the southern population that we call today conditional unionists, only interested in staying in the union of their way of life could be preserved. that meant preserving slavery. they convince them this was the way to go. >> host: allen pointed senator calhoun and jefferson davis leave washington to return to their southern roots? >> guest: calhoun left washington via his early death. he died not long after the great debate that he participated in to save the union. although he was opposed to the come from isolating 50. but, jefferson davis was the last southern senator to leave washington, d.c. he was not a fire eater. in fact, most of the men who

would assume the high positions in the new confederate government first at montgomery and then later at richmond, that was their capital threat, most were moderates, men who had a lot of seasoning and experience in national government in one way or the other. they were the ones who are the spokesman for the confederate people in the confederate nation. both at home and abroad. >> host: didn't jefferson davis have any relationship with abraham lincoln? >> guest: jefferson davis -- there has been a lot written about lincoln, and right now i cannot recall if they had ever met, i doubt it. i doubt they had ever met. but, davis' lif vice president,

alexander stephens of georgia was on fire either either had a friendship with abraham lincoln when lincoln served as a congressman. that was from 1846 - 1848, they were friends. lincoln wrote a letter to him. alexander stephens wrote a letter to abraham lincoln while lincoln was waiting to come to washington just after he was elected to be president wondering if there is anything they could do, if he had any suggestion. lincoln wrote back to him, i would really like to to be able to work this out he said but we don't seem to be able to agree on the extension of slavery. he said in his letter, that's the rub you want to extend slavery and make slavery

national while we want to restrict it. >> host: is your book written for a general audience or scholarly audience? >> host: we wrote this book for students that we have been teaching for gary gallagher has been teaching for over 30 years and i have been teaching for over 20 years. he's teaching at uva, and i am teaching at ucla. we thought a lot about the fact that there is no short, distinct, and yet provocative book, textbook on the civil war that would combine the chronological in the political and economic, the progress of the battles, but also have somatic chapters on emancipation of soldiers, and women, chapters on reconstruction, and also a

chapter on memory. we wanted to cover it all. the causes of the war, the progress of the war, reconstruction which some people might call the consequences of the war, and memory, how the civil war has been remembered. all in 276 pages, 12 chapters. delivered over 20 pages each more or less. we are very pleased with the result of this book and think that it does give our students, we know this since we have assigned it a couple of times already, the basis in which students and also many readers who are not going to invest their time right away in a 500 k of the civil war, but are interested enough to read a shorter book. a book that will excite them, but that will get them to where

they need to go and helped along by her suggestion for further reading section. >> host: but you teach at ucla? >> guest: i teach the civil war, reconstruction in the. that's called the gilded age. >> host: at what point in your life did that become your interest or vocation? >> guest: at what point in my life was it not? i was a nerd from a very -- that is a very anti anti- intellectul thing for you to say. i'm teasing you a bit because i mass at all of the time. as people from los angeles should only be interested in los angeles history. it's been suggested to me, your students, they don't care about the civil war, are they interested in surfing? another base and baseless

allegations made against people who live in los angeles. i was always fascinated with history. as a little girl i read a series of biographies written for children, and the one on clara barton was my favorite. but i went on and read a lot of history and biography, and became fascinated. my favorite century has always been 19th century. and united states history. it has propelled me through good luck and good fortune into a job at ucla teaching my undergraduate students every year about it, about this and credible time. i hope that they use the past to try to understand the present. we know we can predict the future.

>> host: the american war is the name of the book, history of the civil war era. ucla professor, joan waugh is the co-author. >> guest: thank you very much. >> here's a look at some of the current best-selling nonfiction books according to andy brown, group of independent bookstores who are members of the american booksellers association. topping the list is astro physicist neil degrasse tyson's exploration of the universe. that's followed by minnesota senator al franken's memoir, giant of the senate. then, jd vance recalls his childhood in "hillbilly elegy". then a collection of excerpts from davidson terrorists "theft by finding". followed by mark manson's advice on leaving a happier life. a look at the best-selling nonfiction books continues with ceo sheryl sandberg and adam grants advice and moving forward after facing setbacks in "option

b. next, roxanne looks at her lifelong struggle with food and body image in "hunger". a retired u.s. navy admiral provides advice for self-improvement in "make your bed. wrapping up the look at the best-selling nonfiction books according to indy bound, is a book by mark boutin which recounts a battle that change the american approach to the vietnam war. many of these authors have, or will be appearing on book tv. you can wash them on our website, booktv.org. >> book tv recently visited capitol hill task members of congress with their reading the summer. >> i'm reading a book i'm really enjoying, tom friedman's latest, thank you for