reading list via twitter at booktv or instagram atbook underscore book tv or post it our facebook page facebook.com/booktv. booktv on c-span2 television for serious readers. >>ing and booktv is on location, on the campus of ucla we're talking to professors here who are also authors and history professor joe law is our guest coauthor of this book american war, the history of the civil war era. joan wahg give us a snapshot of the united states. >> the first year of the decade that brought on this secession crisis and led to the civil war. 1850 was the year that california came into the union. 1850 was also the year that a

compromise was forged it was the last great compromise they didn't know it then. but we mow it now that -- saved the union and it was a compromise forged by north and south that involved a number of major changes to the way territories would come in to united states that voings passage of a new and strengthening fugitive slave act and compromises neither side north or south profree labor or slave labor was happy about. but it did preserve the union for the tay to decade to come. specifics included the introducing the idea of

organizing territory that came into the united states from america can war under doctrine of popular sovereignty and that meant people of this or that territory when they were ready to come into the union they could decide for themselves if they would be a free or a slave state. the first state that would come in, first territory that would come in that way would be the kansas territory. in 18 54 and it led to what is what was called in history the little civil war. in kansas -- >> now 1850 can you say that compromise preserved the union. >> i could say it preserved the union, yes. at that time -- there were other compromises that preserved the union. the compromising of 1820 for example. the compromise that was made between the founding fathers which they came to write the

u.s. constitution. all of these compromises over slavery were integral to keeping america together as a country. the northern and southern sections. it was something that northerners who were antislavery didn't like. it was something is that southerners who were proslavery didn't like. but in order for the country to maintain its stability, its integrity that compromise had had to be made. we would find in the 1850s all of the compromises that were made including the one in 1850 didn't work anymore. a political party was -- was disappeared the wig party and the republican party was born. in the wake of the controversy other the compromise of 1850 and the kansas, nebraska controversy as well. all of these things led one

after another it was quite a decade. >> some would say this this that this delayed inevitable rather than save the union. >> i think that we would say that if we're looking back as people who live in the 21st century. we don't know one of the things that historian os i believe have the obligation to do is to teach our students to take the past on its own terms. in other words, they didn't know what was going to happen in 1850. they didn't know what was going to happen in 1860s at the beginning of the war who would win. we already know so we put in -- in the the past what we think should have happened or was probability but we shouldn't do that. we should just try and understand the past on its own terms. one of the things you write in your book the american war the south had wielded disproportionate influence in national government from many

decades. >> i think that's true if you look at the first presidents accepting the adams most of them in the late 18th to 19th century were most of them washington -- being the principle one, jefferson madison monroe and so on were slave holders. and it was -- the executive branches wields disproportionate power and for most of the time the wigs did not win the presidential election the second major party. so it was -- it was the southerners who held the power often in the senate. and that started to change in the 1850s that started to change for a variety of reasons. and this southerners felt threatened by that. >> looking back let's go to the 1850s looking back was there a point in that decade that you

could say we could have prevented civil war? >> i think there actually were several points at which the civil war could have been printed u but one of the points certainly was -- with issuance of the ed scott decision in 1857 in which the supreme court went beyond its what it needed to do and to declare that blacks were not ever citizens and could never be citizens and that the united states government the federal government had no right to stop slavery from going into any territory. and that is really, i think, one, one decision that might have at least aced the civil war giving people more time. i really do think that politicians in the 1850s and certainly in the late 1860s in

washington didn't realize how angry the electorate was over this issue. the fire eating sentiment in the south -- and a when they did realize perhaps it was too late. >> economically in population wise the north and south what were they like in the 50s? >> well in the 50s, you had the spectacle of a very well integrated successful economy. you had a cotton economy really fueling the lives of manufacturing and many other of a surging economy at this point by 1850 certainly the growth was phenomenal. but the very success that, and

you have to remember that northerners benefited from this slayed economy. northern banks and investment companies benefited from the slave is economy was part of the international economics structure as well. the plantation system the desire of both sections to expand in the western territories brought free labor versus slave labor it a friction point and that is -- that is the remarkable story in itself. how it became so -- such an issue for slave holders that they felt it wasn't really about being able to establish cotton plantations in campus which was not going with to happen. or the nebraska territory it was

about about the security for the plantation system for the states where it already existed. >> professor wagh you alluded to this often we look at history through eyes of the elite and people who write the history. what about most citizens? in this countries were they aware of the issues that were being faced? >> you're speaking of -- of the people in the 19th century. and study the way that politicians appeal to their electorate and yes people were aware. but they were also not expecting to fight the civil war they know something was wrong and something had to be fixed but here's what they did know. they knew about compromise. they knew that -- that there

were these groups both in the north and south that we could describe as radical the southern fight eaters those who push for secession before pushed by majority and abolitionists in the north. but i believe that most people were pretty much living their lives as the way that americans have always lived it. they were interested in the economy. they were interested in making sure their children had a better life than they did education -- they were also interested in other political issue such as the tariff and scandals blakeing plaguing administration and a lot going on. >> often at the bottom of all list ranking the president. >> so -- i believe that he is what -- you

can -- you can't imagine a more prepared man to be president than james buchanan and in is 56, he had been a politician and abroad he was well known and well respect ready. he brought to the office the hope with his election that he could calm things down. nothing was calmed down. the way he conducted his administration was to alienate everybody, and he certainly did that and he brought the country it a greater intensity of delight for each other instead of pacifying.

before south carolina succeeded prior to that they have to be during the administration they have to be grinding toward that, didn't they? >> the buchanan administration was in power million march 4th and yes they have to deal with -- the -- secession of the first seven southern states and the lower south. and they had to deal, figure out what would be the position that you would take? and the position during that what is called secession winter was to do everything we can to encourage the upper southern states, virginia, north carolina, and tennessee, for example, to stay in the united states. how can we do that? but encouraging the union sentiment 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 unionist and many northern politicians including men that would be considered abolitionist politicians but who believed as most northerners did that there was nothing that the north could do to stop slavery in the south because it was constitutionally protected. they wanted to prevent its extense in the western territories. and this amendment, the first 13th amendment was floated and it gradually became around this amendment which would guarantee in perpetuity slavery to exist 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. and i believe three states began the process but by that time fort sumter happen story of the 13th amendment is a story is that should remind us not to assume things about -- about the past that is more our political interest and beliefs so that was -- there you have it. there were a lot of people willing to stop a war they did not want. that they knew would bring great destruction and sadness, and tragedy to this country. and they almost did it but didn't ruin it. >> reported staying in the union or -- vice versa support going to scwar? >> in the south i would say that upper southern states at the

beginning of the secession crisis wanted to stay in the union if slavery could be preserved in some way and could be guaranteed that -- safety of this of their economic prosperity . virginia turned down secession other states did too. they didn't want to do it unless they could -- flls they were forced and that's why sumter was important, the issue for them is there would be no cohearse to keep the seven original states that formed new nation of the confederate states of america threatened to threaten them. and with fort sumter that was all gone. >> who were fire eaters as you referenced them in south carolina that made south carolina happen? >> well, the fire eaters in south carolina now i'm blanking

on the names, of course. [laughter] i -- i -- >> why south carolina? >> why south carolina, south carolina was the you sneak state in the union actually and comeny from the very beginning it had had a black majority. and the -- from the beginning, south carolina politicians and their leaders, their businessileaders were absolutely i could you could call them fanatic about the safety of slavery wherever any threat was issued and this came up in the 1790s it would come up in the congressional debate this in 18, in the 1820s in mexican war debates. it would come up in the compromise of 1850 controversies so that -- they were always ones

that provided the seed bed of secessionist now we soacialt the theory of secession in fullest depiction with john c. calhoun and he certainly was the -- leader and i think inspiration for many other o southern fire eaters who saw secession as only logical way to preserve what they were increasingly coming to call their country. and what you had here by the eve of the civil war in terms of how the confederate states of america viewed itself were two nation states in the 19th century. who each had a reason to exist and that is a way to understand the the buildup to secession the

drum beat for secession by these men who were prepared for it when it did come and were able to get that large section of the southern population that we call today conditional unionist only in the union is their way of life could be preserved that meant preserving slavery. they convince them that this was the way to go. at what point did senator calhoun and senator jefferson davis leave washington to return to their southern roots? >> well, calhoun left washington via his early death. he died not long after the great debate he participated in to save the union although he was opposed to the compromise of 1850. but jefferson davis was -- was the last southern senator to

leave washington, d.c. he was not a fire eater, in fact, most of the men who who would assume high position in new confederate government first that montgomery later ed richmond that was their capitol throughout most of the war richmond, virginia were moderates were men who had a lot of seasoning and experience in national government and one by or the other. and they were ones who were of the confederate people and at home and abroad. >> did jefferson davis had any relationship with abraham lincoln? >> yes but davis did not have -- a -- there has been a lot written about lincoln and right now i cannot recall if they had ever met. i doubt it. i doubt that they have ever met, and, but jefferson davis vice

president alexander stevens of georgia who is not a fire eat per either had a friendship with abraham lincoln when lincoln served as a congressman in, from 1846 to 1848 and they were friends, and lincoln wrote a letter to him. jefferson, i mean, alexander stevens 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 was anything that they could do that if he had any suggestion and lincoln wrote back to him, i -- i don't, i would really like to be able to work it this out. he said, but -- but we don't seem to be able to agree on the extension of slavery and he said many his

letter that what you want to extend slavery and make slavery national while we want to restrict it. >> is your book written for a general audience or scholarly audience? >> we wrote this book for our students that we had been teaching for larry teachings over year and i have for 20 years he's teaching at uva and i'm teaching at ucla, and we thought a lot about the fact that there's -- there was no short sync yet provocative book, textbook on this civil war that would combine the chronological and political and economic, the progress of the battles. but also have chapters on emancipation and soldiers and women which part chapters on

reconstruction and also a chapter on mom. we wanted to cover it all. causes of the war, with the progress of the war reconstruction which some might call the consequences of the war and memory how civil war has been remembered. all in 2076 pages. 12 chapters, a little over 20 pages each. and more or less, and we remember very, very pleased with the result of this book and think that it does give our students, we know this -- since we assigned it a couple ts already, that basis in which you -- students and also many readers who aren't going to invest their time right away in a 500 to 800 page one volume work of the civil war. but are interested u enough to

read a shorter book, and a book that will excite them. a book that will get them to where they need to go. in help suggestions by further reading section. >> what do you teach here at ucla? >> i teach the 19th century i teach civil war reconstruction and that period that is called the guilded age. >> at what point in your life did that become your interest or your vocation? >> at what point in my life was it not? [laughter] i was a nerd from a very -- from a very -- but that is a very antiintellectual thing for you to say don't you agree? is there some kind of law and i have to -- i'm teasing you a bit because i'm asked that all of the time is that people from los angeles should only be interested in los angeles history. as it has been suggested to me your students. what they don't care about civil war aren't they interested in

surfing, and other base -- and baseless allegations made against people who live in los angeles. but i always was fascinated with history as a little girl i read a series of biographies written for children and i -- the one on claire barton was my favorite but i went on and i read a lot of history and biography and became fascinated, my favorite century has always been 19th century and the united states history. and i -- and 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 incredible period and hope that they use the past to try to understand the present. we know we can't predict the future.

>> the american war is is the name of the book a history of the civil war era. ucla professor joan wagh is coauthor. >> thank you very much. >> booktv recently visited capitol hill to ask members of congress what they're reading this summer. rng well i'm going to finish up by the essay and mover into a reread of fools frauds and fire brands by roger scriewten, and then after that i'll continue on with my -- my research in studies that i've been doing on 1960s particularly this 60 and 78 election. and so i began there with gary wills discussion of the conventions in miami and chicago and '68 and gone from there. and i'll do alberto echoes frog

cemetery, and i'll also finish up with a couple -- fictions. the first two books you listed what's the purpose of reading those? >> the montania book because he's right at the nation period of the -- of the moving into the enlightment area he's very considered to be a prototypical humanist in some ways. i think, i think to be educated on -- on the western civilization you should read that. secondly, the fools fire brands and whatever else that roger is calling these folks is -- it's a look at the new left taking us through the -- from probably 1920s forward and the new left and how that developed and so i'm very interested in that as well. j how many books at one time ?rchtion right now i think i've got six books going.

yeah. so -- >> how do you manage that? >> i don't sleep much. so mostly done with him but -- got about 75, 80 pages to go but i'm taking a few days off from him and going to -- i might sneak a little early to the prague cemetery because that's a little bit more interesting in some ways. you know? [laughter] >> you've also got your own book coming out? >> i've written a couple of book and two books that were published i'm working on another book right now writing another book. but i have a book called the doctrine of liberty that was the first one published and that's a theological look at -- at the doctrine of liberty in and of itself a doctrine of liberty within the my faith which is church of jesus christ of latter-day saints and second one you'll probably hear more about this because jim demint

foundation started working with -- a group to try to get an article five convention. to rewrite aspects of the united states constitution which i'm adamantly opposed to and i used to fight that all of the time and debate that i said i'm tired of debating i'm going to write a book so i wrote a book that is called the con of the con con. so that's -- that's the other book, yeah. >> booktv wants to know what you're reading send us your summer read aring list via twitter at booktv, or instagram atbook underscore tv or post it to our facebook page, facebook.com/booktv. booktv on c-span2, television for serious readers. you're watching booktv on c-span2 television for serious readers. here's our prime time lineup at 7 p.m. eastern from the annual libertarian conference freedomfest a debate on lates author and community organizer

saul. the participants include author, saul's son david alinski and ralph president of the center. then at 7:45 duke university history professor nancy mclane examine work of the economist james and influence on the political ride. ...

intellectual. we have ralph benko from the alinsky center. he has been called the second most conservative man in the world for his recognized adequacy of the gold standard. and david alinsky, famed architect of a new kind of political