now, the monthly in depth program without their jeff shares novel which include gods and generals, the rising tide. they tell the military history of the united states from the american revolution to the korean war. >> host: welcome to the book to be in c-span2. this is our special edition of in depth. we've invited fiction authors on to talk about their work. and colson writer was with this last month this month were pleased to be joined by jeff sharrock. jeff is after books that range from the american revolution to the korean war and were gonna talk about those in a minute.

there were gonna start with facebook, that a viewer has. they posted on her facebook page, what is historical fiction? >> i've had this conversation with other authors typically like the red badge of courage, it's accurate historical setting. but the people are totally made up. that is a little bit different than what i do. i take you to these places with a lot of the real people names you know, whether destroyed eisenhower others. when it's fiction by definition because i'm putting words in their mouth. my job is to tell you story the

way to do that is not just a textbook, it's to put you into the heads of the characters that tie the story that they would tell you. you hearing dialogue and words in their mouth a part of that is from the historical record but then you have to fill in the blanks and my job is to fill in the blanks. if i've done my homework and research history is absolutely accurate. tie the story accurately, don't play games. a lot of those who write historical fiction can do that. there's a number of all authors with a german world war i i don't do that. my job is to make it accurate

and at the same time make it a good story. >> to consider yourself a history? >> guest: no. i an academic historian would look at me and say you don't have the credential. my degree from florida state is in criminology. it had nothing to do with history. to me that's advantage. i did not have a professor at florida state tell me who robert ely was sir benjamin franklin was. i'm not carrying those lessons with me i have to start from scratch. is much more interesting and fresh then resetting something i may have learned in school years ago. that's not an insult to academic historians, but what i do is very different from that. >> the original sources are the key to the research. it's my job to go back by

history books don't do me any good a biographer said object to this. you getting the biographers take notice. if you take 50 different biographies of abraham lincoln will get 50 different versions. i would rather go back and hear the words. saw my research whenever possible his original source material. if i'm in a get into the head of the character i need to know the character. that's a personal thing. the research is as personal as i can make it. >> you do use well-known figur figures, but what about the least expensive from the expert or from those in our time are those real people are made up?

>> their composites, it's very rare to find a g.i. whose everywhere i need him to be to tell the story. that's not saying i make it up but i'll start with the real figure and then i find out more information any composited into this one character everything happen, it's all accurate c is the perfect example. it's the siege of vicksburg. the chain of thunder and the problem for the people in vicksburg, they're trapped along with the federal army. it's really the first time i've had a significant civilian character when you see her point of view that three different.

she learns a lot about war and the gruesome this of what happens to people in the sacrifice the civilians made. that was a different take. i have four diaries and four different women who were there. to me that's a treasure. >> before we get into books i want to talk of some of the themes. number one there's a recurring character and it might be robert ely or winfield scott. >> guest: i love winfield scott some people i've never heard of winfield scott. he was born in 1788. he has been around a while. in the war of 1812 he literally

am starts the war of 1812 and 18 oh seven. he calls it a big diplomatic stink and the british are pretty upset, that's an anecdote but by the 1840s he's the commanding general of the united states army and when the mexican war begins scott is the leader of our troops in the field what that means for history is who the troops in the field are. all these young lieutenant are all these that you know, winfield hancock lewis armistead, george pickett, james long street when a particular captain robert ely in a blue

uniform minutes winfield scott who teaches leigh how to be a soldier. that's a fun story to write. a lot of politics. >> and i really don't like politics. i'm not political in a sense and i've had people say to me sort of a nudge and wink are you really talking about today when he talked about whomever, no, not at all. but yes, in every war there is politics. who fights the war, the people fighting have very little to say about it the mexican war is a perfect example. he perfect purposely cut himself off in here president pulled cannot stand each other. so he's likely to take orders from washington.

he could really care less what anybody in washington the same. little harder to get away with that now that adds some third dimension to the story that you don't usually get from the history book. on the role of washington, d.c.? >> who is it named after. every school child learns george washington is the father of this country. what is that really mean i have respect for george washington as a leader of troops. hardly any character i've dealt with there's a reason he's on the dollar bill. in the city of washington. but beyond that with washington

and president polk is trying to run the show from washington. by the time of the civil war it's congress that divides the senators and representatives. they go to night montgomery and washington is on the border. the first battle on the civil war is right across the potomac river and right across the areas arlington. today this big pillared that was robert ely's home and he knows that. when he's in the capital washington is right in the middle of how the civil war

begins in all the way down the line. then you have george marshall here and you have eisenhower in europe, you have that break and communication is lot better. then washington can play a greater role than they could in the 19th century. >> behind military success. >> it's interesting, there's different reasons for failures. confidence is one of them. ego and narcissism's and it's not just confined to the military, but when you're looking at some of these characters when he had people like yuli sisk grant and sherman in the confederates then you have the braxton bragg's and men

whose ego and personality get in the way of them doing their job and it creates bad things. unfortunately when there's bad things men die and that's a reality, it's not pleasant part of the story. >> host: does it wherein you after a while writing about death and warren tragedy? >> guest: yes. in my last book it's not a happy -- and i've tacked to a number of veterans i can see it in their faces and the way they talk to me that tragedy and what they went through 65 years later is still part of who they are and whether is frostbite in your fingers are simply the memories

of the guy next to them what happened to him, as i was writing frozen hours it got to the point where the emotion was very difficult. i am not a blood and guts guy, but it's a part of the story. i try not to make the story blood and guts because nobody really wants to read page after page of it. laughter is such an important part of it but by the end of the day by the time i finish that book i was worn out emotionally. i had to get away from it and i basically didn't do anything i just have to to separate myself from it and we can talk about all later what i'm working on now is much less than a war story i just needed something different, i think it took more

of a toll on me than i would have expected. >> is there a direct link between the winter at valley forge and frozen hours in korea. >> one of the unfortunate links between the two is these poor guys were suffering and in the 1770s one would think that they're not equipped very well they certainly don't have electricity to keep themselves warm their warming their hands by fire. in korea in 1950 it's the same situation. these men are woefully equipped with winter clothing getting booze that make their feet sweat. so they stop marching in his 30 below zero and they freeze. all the things that happen, the

gloves there given her the spin things and the problem with gloves when you're friday huddy pulled the trigger in your rifle they pulled the fingertips. all of that adds up in their wolf really underprepared for the conditions they run into just like valley forge. >> do you find that the gentleman roles of war change? >> that probably happen more in the civil war first and then world war i for separate reasons what a lot of people don't realize is a lot of people who don't graduate or west pointers, all of them teaching tactics in french. one of the requirements is that you learn french so you learning

the tactics that by the 1860s or 60 or 70 years old. yet, that's all they know. the officers are saying lineup and walk into the guns of the enemy because the guns weren't very good. so the guns are a lot but artillery was a lot better. and so the slaughter increases exponentially. that also happens in world war i. the french go off into battle on horseback and they're going off because it's the old way, they go off in the night germans have come up with the machine gun. machine gun and horses don't go together.

very quickly the french learns that we have to do this differently. there's a lot of tragedy and unfortunately men die when you're dealing with changes. >> here's some facts about the wars. the american revolution lasted from 1775 until 83, there are 4435 the cost of in today's dollars the mexican war of 1846 - 184813000 deaths of the civil war, four years of that about 500,000 deaths and 80 billion in costs. u.s. was in it for one year loss 116,000 plus soldiers at a cost of 334 billion.

world war ii they lost about 400,000 plus americans 4.1 trillion with a t and the korean war 53000 americans lost $341 billion. starting with the american revolution we've heard about the rise to rebellion in the glorious cause what was it about general cornwallis that he became one of your primary. >> what we learned in school the one sentence lesson you get is washington beats -- in the sand of the american revolution. washington and the french defeat cornwallis at yorktown but he's not in command of the british army. he has two people above him who

are up in new york city and cornwallis is alone but he's an interesting character because he's a very good man and a good military commander. history treats him like he's the loser, is a great deal more than that. had he been in command of the british when washington was facing off another famous crossing of the delaware river in trenton, cornwallis had been charged, i suspect it would've been a different outcome. he was a competent general. the problem for him other people above him and telling him what to do and they were not as good. and the other part of this when

i talk about what it is i do cornwallis is a man of enormous personal tragedy. his wife dies during the war. he goes back to england and has a brief meeting and comes away from that feeling like we have a problem. , george the third is not quite right but his wife dies on this man is in love with his wife and he has to go back to the colonies and fight the war caring that load with him. that's the three dimensions, he's interesting because he's a human being and that's what makes this story. >> host: this is another facebook, and he said i started reading your book on the

american revolution. when i got to the part about george washington and long island i stopped because i was certain the americans were going to lose. there was a point when george washington thought they're going to lose. early on in the war he lost almost every battle he was in. the columnist gets chased out and they get chased across the east river cornwallis among them. the new york city today you have the southern part of manhattan island that part of the island he gets chased up to what we know as harlem up to the north then he gets chased across the hudson river and across new jersey and the states into pennsylvania into the delaware

river. that's not a great beginning for someone his trying to fight a war. he's going backwards on then things change when washington re- crosses the delaware river and surprise the troops in trenton and an extraordinary victory. then the british sort of wake up to the fact that this is not just a bunch of farmers. we might have a war on our hands. that's washington and he's the one who did that. it's a more complicated story than what we learned in high school. >> to think it could have been different. >> yes and the reason is because of the men fighting underneath him.

there's no money to pay them and they want to go home. when the winner passes his army says were not really doing too well here i need to go away. there's a speech washington gives to his troops and saves his army. a lot of them say will stick it out for a while. then robert moss is the banker of the continental army and they put together bags of everything they can find that relates to money, whether coins or pieces of silver, flatware and cups, anything that has value when they send it up the army that saves the army. and i think his passion for the

cause and his desperate need for people to speak with them changes history because they do stick with them. >> he did not have a central authority that he was reporting back to. >> the continental congress, there that much of an authority anyway they do unite more behind the cause a lot of people don't realize the columnist don't declare war on king george. king george declares war on the columnist. he said there in a state of rebellion and we need to put down this rebellion. the colonists have no idea how to fight a war. the reason they choose washington who is sitting in continental congress, shy man

who doesn't want to take authority but he's in a british uniform and a member of the virginia militia the guys certain to look -- maybe he knows something about how to fight a war he gets to boston knows him. washington has one thing going for him, he's a big man physically a big man and he carries the stature of someone in authority. people start paying attention and begins to organize officers that's the administrative part of washington that people take for granted. he organizes an army that could care less and it works and i

think you could tell by the way of talking about it i get excited telling the stories because it's fun to get into it. it's not try history. the real story is fascinating. >> where have all the young men gone when i was a child the father is a -- made many have no idea of the kingston trio. and that was one of their big hit songs. that stuck with me. then as we got into vietnam the sadness of that song and i encourage anyone to downloaded online. the essence of the song where have all the flowers gone have

gone to graveyards and the graveyards become the flowers but the point in 1846, all these young men out of west point are clueless about life in war and they go off to be soldiers and they learn the wars not romance or glory and men die. that lessing carries 13 years later when the civil war begins another commanders. >> you skipped writing about the war of 1812. >> i had in argument with my publisher on the response i get is that it was logical to go to the american revolution to the war of 1812. my publisher said at the time it's not epic enough. were of 1812 is actually three stories, the viagra detroit that

whole area and then you have washington and baltimore francis scott key and then the battle of new orleans with andy jackson. it would make a wonderful book in three parts at the end of the day when i have a contract to new york if they won't print it there's not much point in me writing it. >> the mexican american war downplayed because of 13 years later. >> a lot of people confuse the mexican war is the alamo. are you gonna write about davy crockett, no, that's ten years earlier it's a different story and one parallel and i didn't set out with an agenda there's

an enormous parallel between the mexican war and the vietnam war. it's not popular these young men come home and they're expecting to be welcomed as heroes in their coming home to newspaper stories talking about how we have abuse the government of mexico. the people don't realize is the map of the united states as we know it today, texas, they all became part of our territory because of the mexican war. . . mexico. and we put it in the guilt of thecongress over that and i love this , they wrote them a check. the bill that passed in congress said we've won the war and we took all this land, let's pay them money to we did. the number was something like $15 million, we wrote the check to the government of

mexico to s wage all the guilt for taking the land but the unpopularity of that war andthey're talking about politicians . it was a definite divide in washington >> that were anti- what they were doing and all this stuff. it affected the soldiers who deserve better when they came home. i know people from the vietnam era that were spit on when they got off the planes at lax. i didn't expect to find that. >> manifest destiny and cuba we should be able to dictate what happens in cuba there is sentiment about that. so there is the doctorate that we can do anything we want

to. but by the time the civil war broke that apart so the notion that waitwn a minute, maybe just because we say so doesn't meanma it's true. >>host: good afternoon both tb on c-span2 a special edition of military history historical novelist jeff shaara is our guest forxt the next two and a half hours.

very quickly a list of his books and what they are about gods and generals that was turned into a movie, it was a prequel to killer angels and then the sequel came out 1990 i am -- 1998 and the mexican-american war rise to rebellion. and then the t glorious cause and moving on to world war i and world war ii the rising tide in the final storm came

out 2011 that was about the pacific and then back to the civil war concentrating on vicksburg in 2014 and william tecumseh sherman and then the civil war again and then the most recent came out last year which is about korea. what is it about the civil war and jeff shaara? >> in 1974 i will backup ten years 1964, raised in tallahassee my father was teaching at florida state always had been a writer short story line -- his whole life

stories.t we went to gettysburg. we went there as a tourist at 12 yearsy old. with old 8-millimeter film climbing on cannons but something w happened to my father there. he was a master storyteller he knew a good story when he saw one and he started to do some research on gettysburg and became of stress were telling that story and it took him seven years to put the manuscript together the killer angels. that is because he had to teach he couldn't make a living from his writing which is a sad statement. he put the manuscript together and was turned down by 15 publishers in new york and finally a little minuscule publisher picked it up with an advance of $3500 in my father was thrilled it comes out

1974. nobody cares. end of the vietnam war nobody wanted to read ang book about generals. then one year later this magnificent thing happens a telegram comes to my father's house congratulations it has been awarded the pulitzer prize for fiction in 1875. nobody was more surprised than my father but still, he had the right to believe his ship has come in. even then it wasn't a bestseller a crushing disappointment to him. so what other historical works did he write? none. he wrote sci-fi, the love of the game that kevin costner made into a film after my father's death but he had no

interest to go back to the civil war. 1988 he88 died only 59 from his second heart attack in his sleep and five years after that turner puts up the money and the film gettysburg is released and the book becomes a number one seller. i do know has ever happened before 19 years later. he has no idea what he leften behind. so the idea for the freak well and sequel came from ted turner w he said that was enormously successful. he wanted to do more. so he came to me and said wouldn't it be great to do before and after with the same characters?re because it was about a film. i had never written anything before. i was dealing in rare coins in precious metals. i thought about it and said

maybe this is something i would like to try to do. so we had this conversation and then to put the story together that is lousy they will throw that away. how did you know you could write a book? i had no idea but i knew the research my father had done. so i knew i would do that. so i am a businessman in the family representing his estate and killer angels is now a number one bestseller. so i'm talking to the publisher and she says what you doing? i said i am working on the freakth well mom -- prequel that was my father's original title for killer angels and for some reason they rejected that.

i thought this is the perfect title the publisher said send us the manuscript. really? okay. this was september 1995. the phone call i got back was we don't care if it is a movie we like the book we thank you are a writer. here's a contract. my whole life changed with that. gods and generals comes out, debuts on bestseller list. i have no illusions the great american h author has arrived readers and critics cut me slack everywhere. people are telling me good try. gods in general stays on the bestsellers list 15 weeks then the publisher wants the sequel. now i am scared out of my mind

because mia one hit wonder? now there are expectations and pressure. right another book. my editor started to field questions that he is the civil war guy. show him this idea or thatat idea. my editor put that aside. you are a good storyteller. okay we did the civil war and that trilogy now what? so now i will do the mexican war story because the charactersr are similar prequel to the prequel in the american revolution?? who cares. but this is what the publisher said and i quoted this, there

are sexy wars and unsexy wars. the civil war is i sexy. sexy.war ii was world war i is not. the american revolution isr not. my response is, isn't that my job to make it sexy? again, i hate that term but that's my job is to tell a good story. so i left the civil war thinking i was done with that. then the sesquicentennial of the civil war comes around, the 150th anniversary and all the letters i have gotten from people in mississippi and tennessee who said we are tired of hearing about robert e lee in virginia. that is the whole war. what about what happens along the mississippi river? i started to look at that and realized there is a story here i would like to tell.

get it is the characters and the people. sherman first of all he is the connectinger string that shiloh, the battle of shiloh. i went to the battlefield south central tennessee in the middled of nowhere this is a fascinating place to visit 95% original. so i got excited. so with the sesquicentennial the 150th anniversary that woulduc be 2012. 2013 the siege of vicksburg which by the way goes on at the same time of the battle of gettysburg. so i am writing parallel. he is in command that is one of his finest hours. that story is so overshadowed

by gettysburg but look where that is compared to d.c. or baltimore or philadelphia like the media center of thehe day. but this is pretty much in the middle of nowhere on the mississippi river i make the argument vicksburg is more important and gettysburg i have been there. but the conquest of the mississippi river changes everything. and from there going to chattanooga it is important that gone and generals that is in the east. but with the war in the west but now that said that is all

i can do. peopleme say here is the trans- mississippi and a bunch of thingser that happened. then i am on to other things now i have done seven books with those characters. i need to focus on something different at least for now. >> how valuable were the newspapers at the time for your research? could you get a hold of sherman's diaries? be back to very separate questions those that were not all that valuable because one of the great complaints we hear is bias in the media. you have no idea. during the presidential election you have papers taking sides suddenly and discreetlyly so when you read a

newspaper you can tell where this is whether charleston or richmond compared to philadelphia or new york just by the tone of the writing. factually research wise it isn't that useful and you mentioned sherman's diary his own memoir. he doesn't know 150 years laterto pat has held who is he writing to? a diary? you are writing to yourself you don't think anybody will be that and that honesty is what comes through with that

public relations part of that. sherman is of the most attractive guy personally but he won the war that is an interesting combination. >>host: here is what i got a little bit of insecurity is that a fair assessment? >> and by today's definition he is manic-depressive on the one hand a bowl in the china shop but then he collapses and one newspaper in cincinnati actually used the word insane but i think he has some problems but his first great

battle and combat experience is a disaster of mad scramble retreat he carries that around with him and blurs up the numbers with the number of those guys over there and sherman carries that and he is afraid and when he gets into battle every now and then there is that moment when the old ghost comes back. anybody with and then the fear

and then that happens him and what he accomplishes that is is why it is a good story. >> caller: good afternoon as you might know the march in selma that was published in

november and in many ways that is similar to yours. but again that has an influence on you. and what do you think of that great attempt. >>host: we appreciate the call. >> guest: i am not familiar with that it sounds fascinating i have not read it but im familiar with the series. with war and peace other historicalwrite fiction, it surprises people to hear but there is a bunch of people who do what i do but

i don't read them. there is a reason why i am scared to death of being accused of plagiarism. so i don't read novels if i your novel and a particular line of dialogue or some phrase sticks in my head then later comes out in my book that is plagiarism and that could cost me my career. and then something entirely different that doesn't do me any good. i don't ever want to be accused ofdo copying somebody i don't read other works of

fiction but that is why. for legally who uses a line of dialogue because literally could cost me my career. >>host: jeff shaara we have a beautiful graphic on the wall very descriptive illustration. who does those for you? >> i work with my editor. so my father styled to use a painting so because it is a novel that use of photograph or a facer of washington or eisenhower if you use that it makes it look like it is nonfiction so if you use a painting gives the whole feel of the book a historical sense

and now the second of my world war ii books if you look at the image of the cover of the book it is a famous photograph in the library of congress i can't tell you how many have used that as cover art but random house is wonderful they took that photograph to make it into at. painting i would allow any of my book somebody else to design a cover. >> it is fun to see how your name has grown inha size. >> i appreciate that. i have nothing to do with it.t. my first book on the american revolution because up until that point my name is at the bottom the title is at the top

and now the title of the book is down below. that was a shock i guess that is the way it works with the marketing department decides that and i get a kick oute of that. >> you are on with author jeff shaara. >> caller: two things. great show. with the revolutionary war those british troops are supposed to lay down their w arms and second what happened to the thousands of british troops? did they get back to england? >> the first question is little more dramatic. so you have two different kinds t of troops the british mostly went back to england.

and their officers tell them get on the ship and then they go. but a bunch of people stayed here. they went out west in wisconsin and minnesota. and the weatherer was better but by and large so when the british troops lay down their arms to cornwallis but it is anymore ms. victory i love the scene because it is beside washington in the perfect

white uniform. but when cornwallis man and i have a problem with that he would not surrender to surrender his troops that is pretty well documented thatcu is accurate. but when the man comes out and with the continentals on the other side but who does he give the sword to? and he says that guy over there and points to washington.en and of course he does his job.

getting emotional talking about it but that is one of the moments one of the great moments that that same moment they recognize this is who is in charge. i love that moment. >> thank you for taking thehe call. i would like to start with the statement. we always look in retrospect but it was inevitable that there were so many twist and turns. and then to have a completely different result. so as a novelist when those

states wanted to secede. over the next four years and the south it was a run one crop culture basically and with your knowledge of history and imagination, what might have happened? with 600,000 death could the south sustain itself against the great industrial power? >> it is possible but not on its own. they wouldn't have to rely

with that state of hostility. that was the marketplace. so the south might have survived but then here is the opportunity. the carolinas and georgia and we will embrace you again with a natural trading partner it is interesting because who knows what would have happened. but wording can be assassinated? no. what he win the election? probably not. that changesow everything and changes the entire history of the world. you are probably right they

would have survived at some level because they have the money and industrial capability. but i have done this a few timesom if the south had not become british colonies because you have these seven states with their own independence. and the grand duchy of mississippi then what happens? conflicts between mississippi and alabama or north carolina. that is an entirely different place. mentioning the first part of question my job is to avoid that at all costs. with the d-day invasion.

that chapter from eisenhower point of view and nothing after the invasion has taken place. in his pocket is a letter he has written to give to the newspapers accepting responsibility for the disaster at normandy. i had no idea. and then at the end of the war since 1944 we had no idea what would happen. with that nudge nudge wink week that we do that but that isn't very accurate. >> we meet general rommel who is a rising tide.

>> i was nervous. something i learned from my father north and south. so you need both voices. and even going back to the revolution and that is okay but but with world war ii that changes everything because there are bad guys and the character where i found out to my delight rommel is not a bad guy he is a german hero in world war i but not a nazi. but a legitimate german hero.

he hates politics and comes to hate hitler and realizes we can't win doing what he's doing and it makes him human and he is an outstanding officer and had even given the manpower he wanted in africa we would have one and that would have changed everything but hitler treats rommel like a stepchild because he is working in russia. he is all of his resources on defeating the russians and rommel is in north africa with nothing. and then rommel makes such a pain of himself they put him out of the way just shut up

and go home. they put him in normandy. so whenin we invade the german in command of the german forces is rommel he was a natural fit to come back in the next book. so with that political implications so yes he fights in the german army and answers to hitler but not that the shape. it is a good soldier by the way i love this piece of trivia. june 6, 1944 not there when the allies invade that is just

part of the story. >> that speaks to another theme in your book with relationships with jefferson davis and pulled and his generals. it is the story. the story i'm going to tell because this is interesting. that is a piece of history and you mentioned a couple of tandems. but it has to be fun for me. i don't get passionate about the i story.

so it starts with that personality. >>host: california go ahead. >> caller: i am curious. have you ever thought about writing a book? i have such an incredible story of american defeat and why you haven't taken that on as a topi topic? >> a very good question hopefully a good answer. when i was doing world war ii with the trilogy it could have easily been a trilogy set in the pacific but i just chose europe i like the characters and eisenhower but i did the trilogy i began to hear from the marines and they were not happy with my trilogy in europe we aren't in europe

okay. so yes there is another more halfway around the world so i look at my full book trilogy on the end of the war in the pacific called the finals dorm it is the end of the war in the pacific but then talking to my publisher we talked about the idea to go back to look again at the pacific in the second world war talk about stories iwo jima anything from john wayne or the two-part set but there is midway and pearl harvey -- pearl harbor and guadalcanal and a lot of stories. i am having a conversation with my publisher right now about going back perhaps another trilogy & harbor is a good place to start obviously

but immediately thereafter what you are talking about by chance i was in a hotel in kansasns city with the annual gathering of survivors and i knew nothing about this it was years ago i walking through the hotel and i see this and the posters and these guys have a lot of bitterness because people don't pay attention what happened toio them and they are not especially fans of douglas macarthur. he leaves them i shall return. that is what he talks about what he goes to australia he is leaving them behind. that is a tough story about delphi would do an entire book just on that but it definitely a piece starting with pearl harbor.

>>host: what matthew just show it is general macarthur's map in the pacific. so what about his paper and contemporary accounts during world war ii? are they more valuable than earlier? >> probably. because you didn't have to sides on the same country so you have the philadelphia newspaper and the other fighting each other whose general is the good guy we were very much united against the enemy whether the japanese are the germans. although not useful for research but they had news and also i was surprised in a good

way they were telling the truth with setbacks and being honest and not just glossing over like vietnam. my generation like everybody is winning. and actually it was a nice thing to see. >> this is an e-mail can he talk about the hostility between u.s. generals and the mexican war and president polk? >> zachary taylor first bought the beginning of the war is south texas the whole war maybe look at the excuse is

whether the border of texas with mexico would be the rio grande with river as we know that today but the mexico wanted that 100 miles but ten years earlier they had defeated the texas revolution they wanted that 100 miles that was the spark that started the mexican war.at so the militia then got together so then theyy take command a fight three significantt battles and it could go either way. young american men are dying and so winfield scott in washington goes down to the golf and takes command from taylor so he manages things

but then the war moves away from taylor. he is a legitimate american hero and then becomes president of the united states and does get his due but i don't know if i would call them enemies. scott had every right to do whatot he did and leave taylor go down south go to veracruz and eventually goes to mexico city. but now paul is a whole different story. he is strictly a politician and his washington looking out for his own agenda and cannot stand scott. so when scott invades the coast of mexico he cannot stand paul getting more and cuts communication polk tells him what to do and it takes a while for word to get to him

he uses that as an excuse i cannot wait for you to tell me i will cut communication so then scott is on his own that he becomes quite a hero for doing that and pulled is left out in the cold there were a couple of books written about he gets hisine due but taylor is the real hero to the american public. but unfortunately he dies very quickly in office due to poor health. scott runs for president later but never had the affection of the people. >>host: look at the number of death in the mexican-american war, 13000 death is pretty substantial. >> again and weaponry wasn't very good the artillery was a

very good, the tactics stay the same. i don't know what percentage is due to defeat because again one part of the world where the medicine evolves in the civil war before that battlefieldnd conditions are horrible they wounded man there was very little chance with scarlet fever in infection they are in the countryside in mexico with no sanitary conditions so it is a difficult place to fight a war i'm just wondering how much of thats is based on disease or dying from infection. >>host: the next call comes from illinois before team hello. >>aa caller: i am fascinated

with the mexican war as an american i feel very guilty about the way we took that territory and then to give a tokenym payment and we still live with the implications of that today with the mexican-american relations have never been like canadian-american with our current political climate. i have the unanswerable question for you we cannot give california back but how can we ameliorate the situation? >> you are right it is unanswerablele so i can't answer it. [laughter]he but the way we treat mexicans during the war and immediately after again mentioned manifest destiny that we are entitled

the rocky mountains states and texas that we are entitled to that. so looking at that today it is but at the idea time that was our theme that we were from atlanta from the pacific in anything in between belongs to us so we will take whatever we want. obviously today that sounds awful. but at the time that is what this country was all about. and it is interesting i was nervous about what response the soldiers would get in mexico what about mexican historians h? i was gratified to hear that we talked about the alamo earlier --em-dash earlier but ten years later he is in command in mexico again and in charge. there is that point of view i

didn't want to portray him as a cartoon because that is it fair to demand but i have his memoir only translated into english it is called the eagle and he paints himself as a cartoon and takes the responsibility for everything that goes right and blames everybody else for what goes wrong.am and that is his personality so i was nervous particularly how will historians take that? i got two letters from professors in mexicot city who said you got it right. outstanding. history being what it is often the spoils of war are not fair

and with that token payment yes it was. that was a guilt check. you can justify it or not how would the world be different that is the unanswerable question. >>host: after seven books on the civil war how do you feel? >> i knew this question was coming. it was a hot button topic. robert e lee the man to write him as a character to get into his head, me and seven children giving advice constantly every one of them his letters always writing to his kids because he is never home his wife is a tragic figure andfe unhappy woman who hates the fact that her husband is never home and she lets him know that but as a

general i wouldn't say he is unparalleled i think grant is better sherman is general but the lowers the confederacy to survive that long because he knows how to retreat. he knows he doesn't have the manpower or theno arms especially later up against grant he knows that last full measure from the gettysburg address i use as the title of the third book of the trilogy because his men have to give measure if they are going to survive the war. he knows they will not win but yet his men love him they would not let him quit so there is all of that as a man of dignity and integrity and the fact that after the war he will not write his own memoir

because he will not pass judgment on other people he said other people can tell the history. also the governor of virginia he could easily walk into the governor's mansion but he goes to washington college to reestablish what is washington university in washington virginia to educate young men to help them fit back into society to give them an education and a good job and an opportunity to assimilate back into the countr country. all of that is good but now the other side that lead takes up arms against his country. in those days his country was virginia now today is hard to relate to that. he takes up arms and fights for a cause that clearly very easily there is the argument

he is on the wrong side of i history. i know this question will, get this every time i speak, i heard when i grew up in tallahassee florida surrounded by seven nurse to hear that it was not fought over slavery but states rights. what what were the rights they were fighting for? one of them paramount was to have slaves. you can dance around that if you want to and i know i get some people mad i have given this a lot of thought that the civil war again you can define that anyway you want to buy at the end of the day when the principal product of the war ending the way it did because slaves were freed. and had the south won the war very likely they would have not been freed.

now having this conversation with the industrial revolution like the cotton gin in the electric engine slaves may have become obsolete. that is true because you have mechanization. maybe. thirty years later but the slaves were freed when the war ended. and today as much as i admire the man and how much fun i had biting him in getting into his head, he was on the wrong side of history. and that isn't and insult i'm notan slamming anybody but i respect enormously, southerners in particular who embrace history but i'm sorry, he lost the war. you can embrace the romance of

the characters like jackson one of my favorite characters. but the war was wrong for something that had succeeded theg entire world would be a very different place and probably a much worse place. one man's opinion. >>host: booktv c-span2 this year a special fiction edition this month it is military historical novelist jeff shaara is our guest alabama go ahead. >>we caller: i'm having a great time watching this. but i would like to comment quickly about robert e lee it is worth noting he was on record to announcing slavery

as a moral and political evil. he made other comments in that letter to his wife we would find more problematic in this modern era but also on record in congressional testimony after the war inin response to a congressman's accusation he war for the preservation of slavery, his response was, sir, so far fighting a war for him the preservation of slavery i rejoice that slavery is abolished. i don't think we can put robert e lee in the camp of proslavery southern elite. but that being said, i understand that is arguable. but what i really wanted to talkte about was related to the atlanta campaign and one of the statements made by confederate commander josephine johnson that is a

tantalizing what if of history. but during the campaign as the confederate army retreated obviously jefferson davis was getting concerned the people of atlanta were upset and johnston said i can hold atlanta forever and obviously given a chance to do that. and what you can say he never saw the impending battle he d never tried to avoid. that could be a slight exaggeration but look at it in the context of the election, if the confederate army in georgia were able to do to sherman what the did to grant inhi virginia lincoln will have a hard time getting reelected. grant suffered enormous

casualties. richmond is confederate hand lead tells richmond go until the following spring. and to have that opportunity. >>host: you seem to have a pretty deep knowledge of the civil war. >> i have studied it all my life with the unofficial capacity. [laughter] >> guest: i agree about robert e lee. it is not that simple cut and dry good guy or bad guy i start off talking about him saying as a human being as a man of integrity it is hard to fault him but he just ended up clearly on the wrong side of history but johnston is a

character in the fourth book of that series that deals with sherman's march actually april 9, 1865 johnston offers a surrender to sherman in north carolina and people don't realizen' that. but he understands as he backs up toward atlanta and is driving jefferson crazy. he isn't socking sherman in the job and instead master of the tactical retreat. because it is a joke in the richmond newspapers he is so good at retreating eventually he will have the army in bermuda. i am not making that up.

the people just can't read about another retreat. johnston understands and backs up so sherman is a better general and johnston knows there is limited resources sherman knows exactly what he is doing at the end of the day johnston is relieved of command no unfortunately his replacement is good and says i willll fight and thence confronts sherman head on three times and is blasted three times and the army is basically destroyed. when sherman does take atlanta nobody is left because for alabama to get out of the way, johnston had his flaws through the campaign and that is

another story but at the end of the war when him and sherman come face to face here are two men from veryjo different cloth dealing with the same problem how will we do this? and it is a great piece of americanam history. >> he was a pennsylvanian and a confederate general? >> yes. i love the story i assume it is completely accurate but his wife is from virginia and when the war breaks out she tells him you were coming down here to fight for the south one can only assume what that meant for the relationship that because he is from pennsylvania and he doesn't show much confidence throughout his entire command but at the time vicksburg is a

back war so his own army knows he is from pennsylvania so already there is a little undercurrent of distrust and the rumors fly when he finally surrenders his 30,000 men to grant a lot of people to this day can say that was the plan all along. really he was a yankee in disguise. i don't buy anyw of that he just wasn't a very good general. it is a shame for those men who surrendered but he tried. he is a northerner who went to south. >> caller: thank you very muc much. it is a pleasure to talk to you. i have two questions. have you ever considered

writing a book on the french and indian wars with washington? and also about a book deal with the barbary wars i will hang up. >> guest: the french in particular was a conversation i had with my publisher the french and indian war the war of 1812 in spanish-american war. the18 response that the publisher decided they were not epic enough you can make big arguments in the other direction in this man is probably close to that. but never say never at is a possibility down the road but barbary came up a few years ago and has been done like the barbary pirates there is a film and a lot of people have no idea what we are talking about and thomas jefferson during his reign and having a problem with piracy in the

mediterranean. maybe. it isn't high on my list because the research would be interesting and how do you get the other side? how do you get accounts from the other people? i don't know how that would work but the french and indian war is a little more possible i just have to convince my publisher there could bere an audience. >>host: thousand oaks california good afternoon. >> caller: hello. i have a question for mr. shaara in the comments. one of the criticisms of general d was to send a ticket to the body in gettysburg rather going around the right flank of the army. my take is you live in the

gettysburg area i thank you are familiar with the topography of the land but when my father worked on the pennsylvania turnpike 1939 they actually had to send the workers home because they had no accurate mapping of that area. they had to bring in cartographers and surveyors. so was lee's decision based on the fact he just did not know where the hell he was at and didn't want to take a chance? >> guest: is lee's defense that would be a nice response. but no. it was his decision my take is a little different. think about up until two months before he had jackson lee had jackson to lead a tax and jackson's audacity one a lott of fights. so i think it was a case of wishful thinking on lee's part

he still had that spirit and energy in his men. if you read killer angels or the film gettysburg the biggest reason to go around was long street my father thinks that his dos i'll i have no reason to dispute that i thank you were a number of commanders thinking why are we going straight at the middle we should go around them and one reason you go around cut them off from washington which was part of the point. but lee looks across first of all he trusted his artillery to break up the union position didn't work. they tried they unleashed a horrific bombardment on union

center watching throughy binoculars they would think we smashed a pretty good hole that they didn't that was one huge problem right there and also part of lee's weaknesses he relies on faith that god is on our side. in every war i have researched god is on somebody's side each day god is on their side but there is a problem with that. one man on in the book in korea says it is pretty obvious god turns away and didn't want to see what was happening here. but lee had tremendous faith that god's will would prevail

today that seems to be a very archaic way to look at things that you cannot separate yourself today from what those people believed and lee had absolute faith god was looking out for his people and believe it would work. it was a catastrophic mistake and probably his worst day as a field commander. >>host: you have a comment as well? >> caller: i have a personal connection when they sent my father home january 1939 i was born in october so do the math. [laughter] >>host: fresno california. >> caller: i have a question for you concerning the civil war. that never made any sense to me. after the war was finished, why weren't the southern generals tried for treason?

>> guest: there is a very good reason for that and the primary reason it is a carryover from abraham lincoln. he believed we need to bring everybody back together with the least amount of punishment and eyes you well know, jefferson davis was the one man singled out that by and large was grants doing to send the soldiers home let them go work there farms so just to punishfa the south to make criminals out of the people there will be no healing. and had lincoln lived there would no money -- there wouldn't be reconstruction because he very much wanted to

say let's all be friends that overstates that but let's get the country back together again but with the military trials to possibly hang people that would create enormous bad blood in the south more than already existed in wouldn't be very constructive. but again i point to what lee did after the war to go back toan washington college a first-rate institution to help southern men find a place in society. how much more constructive is that then if we had a trial if his name was drug through the letter possibly hanged in some people say deservedly so what would that have done to help the cause? maybe that oversimplifies but that is one idea. >>host: clifton virginia. >> caller: greetings.

i have a question but if i could begin with an homage to your father, when i was a young captain at the army advanced course, we were assigned the killer angels and had to write an essay analysis and i wrote about the and one -- robert e lee andan his qualities as a general during gettysburg. i have followed you and your rise because of that start reading the killer angels and a wonderful historical fiction as you said earlier but my question is tricky and is about confederate monuments how they are treated today. it is a very tough issue at west point we studied all these wars you might be familiar with the old west point atlas of american war. >> i have it.

>> and all these battles of the generals that you mentionedha and now we are going through our reconciliation i guess? what arets your thoughts how we treat or study the south treating these old warriors and how we treat them now? >> what are your thoughts? >> there is a political side in the cultural side and the military side. as somebody who has studied more long -- war at west point and as an officer i have always been attracted to the leadership component. you said things i never knew and how his personality even cornwallis.

the individuals changed history in the moment. they are flawed. butth i do want to remember them because it happened but then you want to have monuments to nazi generals? it is a prickly issue. i always thought we have the backroads here in fairfax so what do you do? i work in alexandria we have monuments there to confederate soldiers still and it is a very complicated issue i don't know that it is a good answer otheris than american history. >> there only complicated answers people try to make simple answers are generally wrong. one thing you didn't mention is the historical.

erasing history is a bad idea i don't care if you are in germany study the nazis and hitler and russia and stalin and learn what they did and understand you came from. it is no different here. you need to study the civil war and know who these people are. don't just erase them from the textbook if you do that you are not making yourself better on a moral high ground but by failing to teach people what the civil war was about and who they were. but that being said, mentioned this earlier, the south lost the war. no country that i know of or no culture on this earth allows veneration of the

losers of four the way we do. think about that. there is no statute to hitler legally in germany they tore down saddam hussein. so if someone is offended that is one effect entire group is offended by a statue that doesn't mean it should be destroyed. it could be a work of art or something spectacular. move it. if the government has that in a town square in richmond or new orleans then put it in a museum or on the battlefield or in the confederate cemetery don't tell me you will go plow up the cemetery. no. learn what happened why is that important? learn that.

don't just destroy it. it is one thing to have the civic government recognize davis asco a hero i do have a little bit of a problem with that he is on the wrong side that?tory but to erase to say we won't have anything to do with that? i won't get into the slippery slope that they want to take down statues of christopher columbus or take away funding for the jefferson memorial because he owned slaves. i'm sorry he wrote the declaration of independence. look at that. pay attention to the whole man and not just single out the bad but education matters if i am talking about robert easier putting words in the mouth of jackson or the confederates it is not i am pro- confederate

but i want to know the history and what happened and the details and i wanted to be accurate and to erase all of that i'm sorry we react with outrage with isis and syria with a 500 beautiful religious monument torn up because they don't agree with what that monument says i am not equating necessarily people who want tomo remove statues to isis but the principle is the same thing if you don't like the history then get rid of it. no. don't i do that. >>host: florida is go ahead. >> caller: how is it going? i quit question. how about oliver wendell holmes? keeping his buddy uniform in his office that would be an interesting character.

and my question is i have a question regarding the civil war veterans fighting the cavalry in the indian war is winding down suffering from melancholy one killed himself talking about the extent of ptsd and now they have the foreigners in the calvary. so discussing that during the civil war? >> that is a complicated question. ptsd is fairly modern defined but the problem is i think it would imagine just about every war the war ends and the soldier comes home he is

trained especially if he is a young man who has been trained to be a soldier and everything that entails now he is not. now he has to get a job whether a vietnam vet or civil war, that is tough and a lot of the soldiers had a very difficult time to adapt to that and to this day, today we have identified that to put a name on it and there is a treatment but with the civil war nobody understood and again go back to the revolution but it was just one of those things the poor young man had to suffer inside himself and no longer have that role. there is nogo good answer to that.lr

one of the things about this country with the american revolution is we are a melting pot much more than the late 19th century even more when my family came from the italy with the irish and swedes and germans and fewer italians and fewer latin than spanish then later but yes in army all the way through the war that didn't just start with the civil war so now someone comes over speaking no english now is a commander in the american revolution. i love that story. i know the film you are talking about. i have not seen it but i have a feeling it probably is inaccurate portrayal what it was like for the calvary after

the war. suddenly theyy had nothing to do and that high in and of alertness when you are under threat where does that go? that is a tough question. >>host: you have been in the movie business gone with generals was made into a movie what was that process like? >> i have to be really careful. i learned inal hollywood it is the author's job to status away. people assume logically it is based on my book i am sitting there telling them that it doesn't work that way i would see being done like mispronunciations of names i would be told thank you very much we appreciate your input and then i was ignored. they made a major motion

picture out of my book how could that be anything but good? i know riders who would give up in arms to have a film made soe yes i don't want to sound like a spoiled brat but it was a very frustrating process because if you saw i the film gettysburg and read the killer angels it is 90% of my father's book. i think my father would have been thrilled that gone with generals is 10%. that was a surprise. i didn't understand i understand the screenwriter has their own vision and that is their job. it isn't up to me unless you are jk rowling or stephen king with absolute control then it will always be different and it will always change. i know many fans like gone with generals i appreciate

that but i wish it would have been a better b film because had it was we would have finished the trilogy he was ready to go the measure even at the end it says stay tuned for the rest of the story. but because it was not aen commercial success turner dropped the project so now likely it never be made and that is a shame. but if it was or if films are made going forward i promise i will be more involved. >>host: have you optioned any of your books? >> there have been there is on the others but i don't have any idea if anything will happen. it would be wonderful if it did. korea i think lends itself fabulously to a film. but itfa isn't up to me.

i get tickled about this people right my website to say why haven't you made l a film? it would make a great film but it isn't up to me. you're talking between between 60 and $100 million. i don't have $160 million if somebody else doesn't want to make a film give me a call that really that is what it comes down to. it can be frustrating but i am in thehe book business it has been very good to me i have been very fortunate the movie business is a different animal. >>host: your publisher was wrong about the war of 1812 that would have been an interesting book what i understand the revolutionary war won our independence and secured and cemented that. >> i am not sure that i agree with that i would say the civil war secured our national

independence and the united states as a country. there is an argument and i am not the expert because i haven't done the research that we lost the war of 1812. yes we have francis scott key and the star-spangled banner and andrew jackson which he won after the war was over by the way and he did not know that that you could make the argument the british sort of won that war. i don't know enough of the facts but i do agree with the fact it is an epic story that would be. interesting to tell and never say never. >>host: 2007 that jeff shaara spoke at the national book festival the night before and we will show youou a portion.mr

>> mr. president and mrs. brush thank you so much for this invitation to beon here.e. it has been a journey for me, not 300 years but it started with my father named michael who changed the way people look at the civil war in this country.wh if you learned your history from textbooks you probably left school hating history but what michael did in the killer angels is he put you in thehe hands of the principal characters in the main players robert e lee, buford and chamberlin to tell you the story not the way you read it in high school history book but the way they would tell you the story.

michael did not list to see his greatest success as a pulitzer prize he passed away in 1985 years later the movie gettysburg comes out killer angels becomes the number one bestseller. he did not live to see that. in writing the free crawl and seek well to his great work, there is a certain terror that comes with that this is not thet competition and father or the shadow but simply to lessen my father taught me if you talk about these people then tell a good story. being a child in my father's house at the dinner table that is my memory. not hearing him give a history lesson that were not interest chamberlain or tell the story of what it was like for those men to walk across that field into the guns of the enemy when the man goes down next to you keep

walking. that is the story. going back to the american revolution was a discovery of where weti came from i knew franklin and adams and adams but i did not know the story and there is a story. going forward the mexican-american war that nobody knows i like that i like telling a story nobody knows. [laughter] and will field scott most people never heard of the man. the man taught robert e lee how to be a soldier for one thing. world war i1 of the names you sort of know the red baron i was appalled running around the country how many people thought the red baron was a cartoon character. [laughter] that is not the way history should be taught. i started to look at world war ii i was really nervous

because i like to tell you stories that you don't know so what could i tell you about world war ii you don't know? hollywood alone has given us somebody stories. john wayne alone has given us so many stories that all the names and famous names and places we know all of that. when i began to research the first of the trilogy is the war in europe and the story covers the first involvement in north africa and sicily. that is a story most people don't know. what they don't realize we go to northowat africa, we don't do too well we come up against a guy named rommel we flee from these battlefield that there is a man one of the key voices of the story and i feel it is

somewhat appropriate to talk about this man tonight it is dwight david eisenhower long before he was president is a in charge and administrator a terrible description who sees himself as a fighting general and that the british and the french and he creates an army into fees that is hitler's germany. and he wins. how? that is part of the story it is an extraordinary honor to be included in this. i am walking in enormous footsteps because if michael have been from his second heart attack at only 59, he

would be writing these books the audience he could not find with thefi killer angels has found these books and he deserves that. thank you very much. [applause] >>host: chae to meet the bushes after that? be my guest. both before and after. this isn't about politics but when the president of united states invite you to come to an event because he is a fan of your books, that is pretty good. and i will say in the interest of bipartisanship three presidents have said that to me. buty that event was at the library of congress and a lot -- that was the seventh of her eight so when i was

speaking in black-tie a notice that was crooked i heard that afterwards but half of congress is there andnd the cabinet and to see it next to the president and the main tag was on the table next to him. to talkk about baseball and his daughter was just coming out with a book and cautioning her you will get blistered. and that was an interesting conversation. with a tiny little anecdote and then came over to the table and i already met him down below in the basement and

he held his hand out i put my arm on his shoulder. he is ripped by the way. [laughter] and i realized at that moment a secret service agent somewhere just flinched. don't grab the president. i pulled my hand away. [laughter] it was an extraordinary evening. . . . .

>> he never toured in his day in te '70s, even when the pulitzer prize publishers didn't to that all that much. so he never heard from fans, people -- i have a web site. there was no such thing as a web site when he was writing. i hear from people all the time, direct contact just like the phone calls we're getting here. he never heard that. the gentleman that was required to read killer angels when he was in the service, oh, yeah, it's been required reading in every military academy, if you're an officer, you've read the killer angels. he had no idea. so if he were alive though, he would be 90 years old this year. but, i mean, if he were alive

the last 23 years of my life would have been very different, because these would have been his books to write. >> host: very quickly, we want to show our viewers your favorite books as you sent them to us, the passing of the armies. ulysses s. grant, the personal memoirs. for country and core. henry butcher, my three years with eisenhower, and ernie pyle, here's your war. >> i think there's a theme running through that selection. [laughter] as i mentioned earlier, i don't read novels because i'm scared to death to pick something up that sticks in my head, and then i could be accused of plagiarism. those books, all of those books have played a pivotal role in my research in whatever particular story they would apply to. and i mention one specifically which is gayle shisler's book, it's about her graph, her grandfather's oliver p. smith in korea. he's one of the main voices in

that story. she wrote this biography of her grandfather, i read the book, i didn't know her. and i was blown away. i want this man to be a voice in the story. i contacted her, i found out where she lives, and i contacted her by, you know, i wrote her a letter actually and said, introduced myself. and i said, you know, i'm really interested in more about this man. and what i said i promise you i do not exploit. i'm not looking to some expose junk, i just want to tell the story. she was -- well, she wrote back and said i know who you are, i've read most of your books. it was really a nice thing to hear. [laughter] and apparently her husband is a career marine as well. and she sent me three audio cds of her grandfather who did not write a memoir, but he did an audio memoir. she sent them to me. i have his voice. so if somebody wants to contradict something he does in

the book, i'm sorry, i can get him to tell you. i love that. that's the best example of that personal getting into the head of a character in all of these books. >> host: so the frozen hours, you can use direct quotes from general smith. >> guest: yes. and i tried to use direct quotes in all the books i've done when the quotes were available. i mean, ulysses grant, there are plenty, there's a bunch of robert e. lee. the more modern you go, the more there is. pershing, eisenhower, patton. i've got patton's papers. boy, is that some good stuff, and some not so -- some stuff you can't repeat. [laughter] but, yes, that's crucial to the research. >> host: jeff shaara, is it fair to say that you avoid foul language in your books as much as possible? >> guest: you know, yes, and there are two reasons for that. one, i was -- can when gods and generals came out, i'm on tour, and this young man comes up to me and says is there anything in your book objectionable for my child to read?

i hadn't thought of that. and i thought for a minute, and i said, no. actually, there's not. and since that point, i mean, that made -- you know, when i realized, okay, children -- we're talking about 8 years old have come up to me holding my book in their hand, what an extraordinary thing. and then i hear from high school teachers who are using my books in their classroom. okay, i'm not censoring myself. i don't want to go there. but the point is what i've said is if i can't tell you the story of a young marine -- now, you can't tell me what 20-year-old marines talk like. i get it. but if i can't tell you that story without bombing you with severe profanity, then i'm not a very good writer. if i have to rely on that to get the feelings and the passion across to you, i need to go, you know, find another job. so it's interesting, though, and -- what i've said to people is you will not read any language in my book that you do

not hear on network television. not cable television, on network television. i still get grief. i still get people writing me -- [laughter] why do you have to rely on such foul language? what foul language? [laughter] there's really nothing in there. but, i mean, people have different sensitivities, and i get that. but, no, i'm very proud of the fact that these books are -- teachers are using these books to teach history. that i blows me away. that blows me away. it also adds to my responsibility, get it right, you know? don't play games with the facts just to make my story better. tell an accurate story if a 15-year-old, a 16-year-old is relying on that story to learn something about the civil war, the american revolution, you know, get it right. but, no, the language thing -- and i didn't set out with that as an agenda like i'm going to keep it clean. it's not clean, but at the same time i don't need the shock value. if i do, i'm a lousy writer. >> host: at the same time, going back to your comment about your

books being used in schools, you said at the outset of this program that you are not a historian. you don't consider yourself a historian. >> guest: i actually had somebody -- i was at a book festival here in d.c. and i had somebody get in my face and say they're using your books to teach, you can't use a novel to teach history. the person really was upset about that concept. and my point about that is, okay, first of all -- and what i've heard from the teachers -- if you can give the student a character that they can relate to, somebody they get interested in, they'll learn history, and they won't even realize they've learning the history. and then i hear from the same teacher who says, yeah, we were using this textbook over here, and the whole class fell asleep. i get it. you need names, dates, places, facts and figures for a kid to pass a test. but if you really want the kid to have an interest and pursue it further, give them a story. give them something they can relate to. and it was the teachers who inspired me, again, what i said before, get it right, you know?

don't play games with the facts. tell the story accurately. it's a novel because you're there and because you're hearing the dialogue, but everything happened, and it happened the way i tell you. >> host: what's your writing process? your books 4, 5, 600 pages long. >> guest: all the research first. to do a little research and a little writing, that wouldn't work for me at all. i have to get the whole picture. so research all comes first. and, by the way, part of that is going to the ground. and i've got a funny story about that. in every case -- this started with my father taking us to gettysburg as kids, you know, walk in the footsteps. there's really something to be gaped if i'm going to describe -- gained if i'm going to be describing a hill to you, it's really better if i've been on that hill instead of just see a picture of it in a book. that being said, i really when i started working on korea, i wanted to go to the chosen reservoir.

i did not know, i'm embarrassed to admit, that the chosen reservoir's in north korea. the state department, i actually talked to a fellow from the state department who said to me, quote: we can get you in. i waited for the rest of the sentence -- [laughter] there was no sentence, and my wife said to me, no. [laughter] so that was the end of that. so i've not been to the chosen reservoir, which i really, i wish i had. but, no, that's a big part of the research, walk the ground. go there. see it, feel it. i mean, there's almost a mystical thing about that, feel what these people went through by being there. and then when i feel like the story's ripe -- and that's a word i've told a lot of people who want to be writers -- how do you know when to stop researching? the story's ripe, it's ready to come out. and when you sit there, the hardest thing is looking at the blank computer screen, page 1. chapter one, page 1. you're looking at blank. my father was a piece of paper.

for me it's a computer screen. the first word, you know, but what happens amazingly as anybody who's a writer, i think, gets this, you write those first words and then the second words, and the third words, and the next thing you know you've got four pages. that's cool when that happens. and if it doesn't happen, you're not ready yet. go back and take another look. but that process when it -- and i've often said it feels like the story's writing itself. i'm just a conduit. these people are real. these people exist. what they did, i'm not making it up. i'm just a conduit. the story's out here somewhere, and it's coming through me to the pages. and that sounds, again, kind of mystical. my father said during the writing of the killer angels he was visited by every character in the book. that's not a good thing -- he said that to the newspaper reporter. the problem is it comes out in print, it sounds like michael

shaara's a schizophrenic. but i get what he meant, i know exactly what he meant. when i'm writing a scene to you, i'm there. i'm hearing the dialogue, i'm just telling you what i hear. that's, i hate to use the word, the magic of it. when it's ready to go and it comes out like that, there's no more fun for me than that. >> host: how'd you end up living in gettysburg? [laughter] >> guest: well, first of all, i was going to gettysburg from really 1993 when the movie gettysburg came out. i was going, i was doing book signings and various things promoting the film, and then i -- so i was going back, then gods and generals came out, that was a logical place to do a book signing. and i was doing that twice a year, i was going there. the first of july, and then november 19, the anniversary of the gettysburg address. and i was doing all kinds of events, so twice a year i would go there. and twice a year i would stay in

the same little boutique hotel. and the manager of the hotel, the woman i became friends with over 22 years, and we would talk twice a year for ten minutes. and there came a point about five years ago when we were both in a position in our lives where, you know, we could actually talk a little more. and so i, we started doing that on the phone, and then i went to visit. we had our first date -- [laughter] at the 150th an verse anniversary of the battle of antitunnel, september 17th, 2012, we had our first date. and about a year and a half later, we got married. her daughter was in high school, and it made sense to me that, okay, do not pull a child out of high school, so i moved to gettysburg, and our daughter now is at temple university and doing extremely well. and so, but, you know, it's a family affair. i mean, that's really how it happened. it was because of the woman i

love. >> host: back to calls. we've got a little less than an hour left with our guest, jeff shaara, and let's hear from gore on the in taylorsville -- gordon in taylorsville, kentucky. >> caller: good afternoon, gentlemen. c-span is truly a national treasure. >> guest: i agree. >> caller: enjoy your programs. mr. shaara, i was raised in the same neck of the woods as you. i didn't realize you're from tallahassee. i grew up in albany, georgia. i studied history under bill wiley at emory university. bill wiley was the common soldier of the civil war. and his classes were very popular for that reason. [inaudible] the stem of the civil war and went to work for 40 years, but i'm getting back into the subject now because there's so

many parallels with what's going on in america compared to today with a lot of the disagreements in our society. and if you study this history, i believe we could learn some lessons from it, lessons of compromise. but my question to you regards shiloh. i always heard anecdotally that grant, when he got off the -- [inaudible] at pittsburgh, i forget which he was, he had his hat shot off of him. [laughter] but i've never, i just read the american ulysses, and i've read several other books too, and i've never found that actually in literature. do you know if that's the case or notsome. >> guest: it's not. that's very apocryphal. first of all, when grant lands at pittsburgh landing, without an h on the end, there were no confederates there. there was no fighting right

there. what he ran into were hundreds of union soldiers who had run from the front lines and were hiding under the banks of the river. the river was fairly elevated right there, and you had caves and nooks all a along the edge of the river. and the a bun of -- a bunch of union soldiers were quivering in fear along that shoreline. so it's unlikely anybody would have shot at him. but he was horrified at a what he saw and realized, okay, we've got a problem here. and how he dealt with that problem is a big part of a blaze of glory, and i tell that story. but, no, i love the character of grant, and i would agree with you, i mean, about -- you know, one of the things i hear a lot is, oh, my god, in this country we have never been so divided, and we have never been so polarized as right now. kind of hard to argue when you go back to 1861 and see, you know, when we started a full-scale war against each other. god forbid that will not happen now, but we've been through this

before, and i agree with you that, you know, we need to study our history and learn where we came from. >> host: jeff shaara, chain of thunder, vicksburg, if you go there today, can you get in the caves where a lot of the townspeople pled to? can you -- fellowed to? >> guest: you can definitely get a sense of battlefield. it's an incredible place up on the bluffs overlooking the mississippi's down there. and across from the river is absolute flat9 swamp, because it's the delta. i mean, you're looking into louisiana. and so the battlefield is very well preserved. it's a place any civil war person definitely should make a visit. the actual caves where the people were, because they were just holes in the ground. in 150 years, they've filled in, they've been covered up. what -- one thing they have

done, they're cutting the trees. if there were no trees then, there shouldn't be today so you can get a feel for what it really looked like. i was there maybe 12 years ago doing a tour there, and the ranger or would apologize and say, well, you know, the union position's down, there's a big ravine over here. can't see anything because it's solid woods. and he said, you know, the controversy was, well, the park service should not be in the business of cutting down trees. and the response was this is not a park, it's a historical park. it's not just for trees. this is about the history. so -- and they've been doing this at gettysburg for a number of years. i so applaud that because it makes such a difference when you're trying to see, you know, through the eyeballs of the people who were there. you really get a sense of that now at both of those places. >> host: when you tour a specific location, do you go in anonymously? do you go in as jeff shaara? >> both. i've done both.

one of the things about the civil war i would not go in anonymously because i could get all kinds of help. [laughter] if i told somebody and it would be set up in advance, jeff shea rah's coming, he's work on a book, it really opens some doors. you get behind the scenes things that people won't see. and i don't want to make it sound like i'm, you know, hot stuff because i get that, but it helps. you'll get little tidbits and pieces of information that you might not get otherwise if you're on a bus, you know, and you never get off the bus. i tell people, no, use your feet, walk on the ground, go out there. >> host: next call comes from bob in houston, texas. bob, please go ahead. >> caller: yes, mr. shaara. when i read gone for soldiers, it piqued my interest in the mexican war because it was a subject i knew very little about. one of your callers had remarked about how looking back at history we tend to think that things are inevitable, and they were not that inevitable at the

time. one of the things i found in my reading was quite a few european military observers of the time who thought that mexico would at least hold its own or possibly win the war. could you comment any on that? >> guest: sure. there are a number of quotes, actually, i put a couple of them in the back of the book. as you say, military observers, and they're paying attention to what's happening. it's a major event. and when winfield scott cuts himself off from all communication and begins to march inland from the gulf of mexico, people assume he's dead. publish mean, there's no way -- i mean, there's no way he's going to, and he only has 10,000 men, and they're never going to be heard from again. this is going to be a military disaster, it's a ridiculously stupid thing to do. it flies in the face of what everybody's ever been taught, and then he wins. and when he wins, all these same observers, this was genius, this was wonderful. he did a fabulous job. so, yeah, i mean, it's interesting to realize even

then, i mean, 180, 190 years ago how much attention's being paid to these things around the world. >> host: jeff shaara, this is an e-mail from felix in brewster, massachusetts. did you notice that jeff praised both generals cromwell and sherman who were noted for their attacks on civilians, farms, food stocks and other non-combatant entities? by the end of world war ii, these acts were properly called war crimes. question: what is it about sherman and cromwell that shaara finds so worthy of praise? >> guest: well, cromwell, i don't think we talked about -- >> host: i think he meant cornwallis. >> guest: well, i would disagree with that take. first of all, furman has a reputation that's been embellished in the south, in georgia particularly, as being savage, as being brutal. i'm sorry, that's not accurate. there are brutalities, most

definitely. civilian plantations burned, yes, most definitely. were things ransacked? definitely. sherman didn't authorize any of that. and i can get deeply into that. i won't because i'd rather deal with the greater or issue. sherman, i mentioned this earlier, sherman and grant share something. they won the war because they understand -- you asked me the question before about a gentleman combat, you know, what was gentlemanly war. what sherman understood is -- there's a letter that sherman burns a town in mississippi during the siege of vicksburg. the townspeople are begging him, please don't burn our town, you know? we don't have any soldiers here. this isn't a military target. and sherman says if you, if all you know of the war is the occasional box that comes home with one of your sons and you wail and you cry and you have a funeral and the kid goes in the ground and that's the end of it, you forget about it the next

day, if you don't have a contact with the war, you have no reason to make it stop. i'm going to hurt you. and he does. and that principle is, okay, everyone has to hurt. if it's just the soldiers -- world war i, you know, look at -- world war i is fought on the western front in this no man's land that stretches from belgium to the swiss border. that's where -- there's no bombing of cities, there's no what happened in world war ii, there's no b-17s, there's none of that. the war goes on for four years, you know? because the civilians are not hurting. war, and i'm sorry this is a brutal reality, war affects everyone. not just the kid with the rifle in his hand. and if the civilians back home are not aware of what that kid is going through and they're not feeling that pain, the war will just keep on going. that was an awakening we had in

this country in the late 1960s in vietnam, you know, because we had tv cameras. here's what's happening, and it's in your living room every night with walter cronkite. look what happened? people reacted with outrage. if it's quiet and, you know, once in a while you read a newspaper story, it just keeps right on going. so, you know, first of all, i disagree with the statement that after world war ii all of this was recognized as war crimes. the allies bombed -- the british and americans particularly -- bombed german cities, bombed them to give on. we -- to oblivion. the outrage over japan is hiroshima. we used the atomic bomb. we had destroyed 15 square miles of tokyo and killed a quarter of a million people. where's the outrage for that? it's war. and sherman understood this better than anyone fighting it. it's one reason i admire the man and why i say he ended the war. how much longer would it have

gone on had lee been allowed to escape grant in, i'm drawing a blank -- >> host: petersburg. >> guest: how long could it have gone on? sherman understood you want to end the war, you end the war. and i admire him for that. and it's not a war crime, i'm sorry. >> host: jeff shaara is currently reading the missiles of october: 12 days to world war iii. we mentioned earlier that you're writing, your next book is on the cuban missile crisis. chronologically, the vietnam war comes next. >> chronologically. i'm having a problem -- first of all, yes, cuban missile crisis, and i'm really excited about this. what a story. that's my, you know, i was 10 years old. i remember, and i've said this to so many audiences i've asked how many how you remember duck and cover? i was in the third grade. in the event of nuclear war, get

down under the desk, put the book over your head and we'll close the curtains. [laughter] i'm not making that up. and i had a neighbor with a fallout shelter, you know, the big hole in the ground that in the event of nuclear war, you go down in the fallout shelter. nobody ever seemed to be able to answer the question how long do you stay there? a day, a week, a year? 10,000 years? i have no idea. [laughter] it was, you know, it was the time we were living in. that's sort of the facetious part of it. young people, i've said this to many school groups, you have no idea how close we came to world war iii. and that's serious. because we would not be here today. and that's what cuban missile crisis is all about. so i'm really, i'm having a lot of fun with that. vietnam, i've been getting so much input from vietnam vets about, you know, their story. and it's, you know, a story that needs to be told a certain is way, and what i'm struggling

with is what that story would be. you've got a war that basically lasts almost 15 years. i'm not going to do the political story. i don't want to do the nixon/lbj/mcnamara/westmoreland story, i want to get out there with the grunt. but what the story would be. i'm having a hard time finding the good story. not that they're not great stories, but how do they end? and when they end where nothing happens or where we took that hill and then the next day we give them the hill back so we have to fight for it next week, what's interesting about that story? and this says nothing about -- i'm not talking about the heroism of the individual or the medal of honor recipients or any of that. there's some phenomenal stories. but i'm really struggling with what that story would be. and time will tell. i mean, i'm sort of up to my ears in cuba right now. but vietnam, i'm -- i have to work on that. >> host: this is an e-mail from a gentleman named ray hoefling,

but it's actually from ed in plymouth, massachusetts, world war ii marines veteran of okinawa, and ed dente writes: jeff, thanks for your excellent storytelling and accurate account of my personal experience as an 18-year-old marine in the final storm. i also enjoyed reading no less than victory, and i'm now reading the rising tide. my question is, have you ever eaten a k ration? you write about them a lot. [laughter] >> guest: well, i write about them a lot because they all had 'em. [laughter] yes, i have, actually. and i probably didn't enjoy it any more than mr. dente did. however, if you're, you know, he was on okinawa, if you're in that situation and, you know, you're in a muddy foxhole -- and there are plenty of those on okinawa -- and that's all you've got the eat, so be it.

you probably appreciated it a lot more than i did at an army base when there's nobody shooting. no, i have to say when i get letters like that, there is nothing that makes me feel better. it makes me feel more gratifieded for what i co. and -- for what i do. and mr. dente notwithstanding, and i did my book on normandy. i got a book from a guy who's -- a note from a guy who's in the airborne, three in the morning over the british, you know, the english channel to drop down into what ended up being water and drowned a bunch of guys, and the guy said you put me right back on that plane. and you made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. and you made me remember things i never wanted to remember. you got it right, and i know because i was there. what's better than that? you know? if i ever need any reinforcement that i'm doing my job, there it is. and i'm so honored that anyone

who did, who walked the walk, you know, who did the deed would take the time to tell me, to say anything to me. and, you know, it's like that i'm not worthy thing. but to recognize what i'm doing is useful and is accurate and is maybe helping him to cope with some of the horrific memories he, no doubt, is carrying around with him, then i'm really doing my job. and i am so pleased to hear from people like that. >> host: did you interview ed dente? >> guest: no. i think i've received a couple of e-mails from the elder gentleman in the past on mr. dente's behalf. >> host: he must be mid 90s now, right? >> guest: at least 90, it would have to be. okinawa was 1945 -- >> host: he was 18 then so, do the math. >> guest: exactly. yep. >> host: yep. newt gingrich sent out a tweet when the frozen hours came out. i don't know if you've ever seen this.

we're going to show it to you. and it says that jeff shaara's the frozen hours is a remarkable reminder of the dangers of intelligence and strategic errors in korea. >> guest: very nice, thank you. i had not seen that. so, yeah, boy, we could talk a long time about that. i mean, i was nervous about the character of douglas mac arthur because there are a lot of people in this country absolutely worship the man. and i wonderedded, okay, how many of those people are going to write me and say how dare you, because that take -- the take from general oliver smith who i mentioned earlier, the take of the marines about what macarthur told them to do based on his absolutely dismal intelligence reporting -- i mean, i without getting deeply into the story. here's the book, i could get very deeply into the story. ..

what mccarthy does then is probably the greatest thing he ever did. a stroke of genius. he invades south korean port above where the north koreans are and get behind them to cut them off. it works good north koreans are cut the supply lines of the end of streaming back into north korea. and macarthur could have basically won the war or lease put it back to where it started. send them home. it is not good enough for him. he decides he's going north. he crosses the border. the marines leading the way and one, two prongs of this. and they are doing great. the korean army is pretty much

defeated. silver suddenly their price here and there they captured prisoners. and they are not north koreans. they are chinese. why recapturing chinese? macarthur is intelligence comes back and says, no you're not! or, if they are chinese, there are a few volunteers that is come south. to fight for their friends. that is the intelligence report. for all of the marines which is what this is all about, the 15,000 marines advance knowledge and advance into a trap, the jaws set by 125,000 chinese troops. recommended general -- and others in north korea. macarthur has no idea. macarthur and his intelligence people are in complete denial

that the chinese have in fact entered the war. not just in the war but send hundreds of thousands of troops southward into north korea and we work -- the cost of that was catastrophic. there was nervous about telling the story because i expected nasty letters from people who were supporters of the start there. i got one. i guided my face about three weeks ago in dallas. you have besmirched the reputation of a great american hero. well, okay fine. that is one opinion. the guy was also in st. louis on tour for the book in the front row is an marine that survived and i said this and he spoke up and he said, i can think of 15,000 marines that hate his guts. and i am so happy to hear that. thank you, i appreciate that.

you know i will take more credit with that comment. the story of what happened to the americans in korea is an avoidable story but then how much more is avoidable? how often can you say that? and i think that is probably the case. >> was america in any way prepared? >> absolutely not! world war ii, 1945, we are by far the strongest military the world has ever seen. which made up for anymore? we send them all home. the marines particularly. the marine corps is downsized, president talks about getting of the marine corps for good. and then a lot of them at this time home and they have a life -- a wife and a kid. then suddenly we need you. they're called back appeared

and of course their trains. there are budget people going to korea that had no training no even times to do that. and it is not a good thing. and so that is how the war begins. it goes on from there. >> let's hear from john in washington.good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i have two quick questions for you. one, when lincoln freed the slaves, why didn't he preach general grants free slaves? and secondly in a different war, has he ever considered doing a book about daniel morgan? first of all that is a chapter. i've done that story in my second book on the american revolution. it is a great story! i love him. and that is a huge victory for the colonists.

and so, i have done that. i am not sure what you mean by grants, grant did not have slaves. grants father-in-law at the beginning of the war, grants father-in-law, did all slaves and granted have a problem with that. but grant never owned slaves. and i am not sure exactly what you mean, there were certainly, there were colored troops marching with grant at various times in the war. but they were not indentured. they were not slaves. they were free troops. i'm not really sure what that implies. >> if you cannot get there on the farm as if several social media sites. you can go to @booktv that is the handle for twitter, instagram and facebook as well.

plus we have email, booktv@cspan.org.i will run through several emails. this is from ron. when will mr. shaara tackle a novel about -- >> this is an gods and generals. different points of view. one of the things i learned early on, i hate to describe what i do as more books but you can have too many battles. you have too many battles it is one of the flaws in the film, gods and generals for they shall battle scene after battle scene. the audience gets two that after a while you can only really have two major battles in any film or any book. clearly, again, you just get two the details. so i treated this a little bit of different way. you see this from chandler's

point of view and then you see the aftermath of hancox point of view. to get the effect of what happened there. just not out of bullets whistle by your ears. >> this is john in mississippi. when it comes the first world war book, did you original contracts multiple books or was it supposed to be a single book mapquest that was probably my best book. i think it was probably my favorite book. maybe the korea book. but originally, yes it should have been two books. in new york random house, notably that there was an audience for two books on world war i. but basis and that i compacted into one book.it is also my longest book. but you have the flying a story, the red baron and a wonderful story. a character almost no one has ever heard of. the finest we ever produced in

this country. -- i love that story. the red baron on the other side, he is not a cartoon character. he is the real guy! and a wonderful character. and you have people that got and realize what role the marines played in the first world war. maybe you have heard of that. the marines win and i really enjoyed that story. i'm glad it was mentioned because i knew nothing. like most people. i knew nothing about world war i. >> you are the civil war guy. >> well, the civil war, it's interesting i went back to the american revolution and my publisher was nervous. first of all they're going to care about the american revolution and the second, what i found out was that possible there are budget people out there that care about the american revolution and don't care about the civil war.

and then this other wonderful thing. i say this with humility. a lot of people probably to the american revolution. and then i hear from these people, they went the civil war books but they like world war ii stuff. and they said i didn't know about that. so, never following my gut, i don't take it for granted. it is a really nice thing. you know i get the letters before you go back and do the next story on the civil war? and it is a good one. there are a bunch of them. all i can say is never say never. >> two civil war questions quickly. bob in north carolina. it is amazing to me that this is a long in-depth discussion of the civil war and grant has hardly been mentioned. >> i will set the record straight. grant is very general. i talked about sherman at length but sherman was under grant. and grant, when he, i love

writing!in the last full measure it is grants first meeting with lincoln. and they don't know what to make of each other. they sit down and lincoln explains to him, if you will just bite, i will leave you alone. do what you have to do. i will send you all of the help i can. i will not table to do. grant so appreciates that and the results of that as they say is history. early in the 64 remnant makes mistake. catastrophic mistake that grant makes. the first day as a perk commander in a thousand casualties in 30 minutes. but yes, he wins the war. grant and sherman between them are responsible for the victory happened and when it happened. >> john thomas civil war reenactor? what is your favorite one minute civil war stories itself the public? >> about reenacting? i have a behind the scenes

story on a set of the film gettysburg. every time they set up a scene it is choreographed. in the background you have the wagon and people walking has to be set up very carefully. there is a scene where lee and along street, tom barringer and martin sheen on horseback. slowly going for the camera and the conversation is going on. then the problem is the horse that martin sheen is on has a mind of its own. it suddenly goes off and is not just cut and go back and do it again. these guys overhear these guys have to go back over there. it is a big involved thing. after about three times the director is really getting frustrated with the stupid horse. and finally, they are running out of daylight, they're shooting the scene and the horse is minding, the members of going, how many seconds it has to be. just as they're about to finish

the scene, if one brings in the building. in one of the reenactors yell out, it is jeb stuart is going to be a little late. if you know the story it is funny but if not i just wasted your time. reenactors do have a sense of humor. i will leave it at that. >> arnold is calling in from north carolina. you are on with jeff shaara. >> hello, good afternoon. good to talk to you mr. shaara. i read your books and your father's book. your father's book is what got me started in being a civil war buff because in my small town in north carolina is a monument inside the courthouse that is dedicated to north carolina resident and i never knew this until i read your father's book. what it was all about. the north carolina, it was a behind -- at the high

watermark. at least my question. why was lee such a -- and engineering some battles, when he saw 70 bows especially when he fought gettysburg. he was watching the sort of getting mowed down. i mean this was like this to the whole war. the market until those kind of situations and nobody learned anything. just one after the other, then you had gettysburg and they all attacked and got mowed down. they made the trilogy, i missed that. have a good day. >> i touched on this a little earlier. up until then that is the only way the generals knew how to fight a war. it is the way they were taught. it was unmanly to hide behind a

tree. and after you to the wilderness and spots later in the morning, all of the sudden, they called monastery, the queen of spain in the trenches with their shovels. after that you cannot get enough shovels. they began to realize that getting up there, that guy pointing a musket in my head might not be the best place to be. i would rather be in a hole. maybe it is not that mailing to hide but up until that time the soldiers were doing what they were told that the generals have learned how to fight by reading books on napoleon. napoleon stood his men out to the british and the american revolution. they had the bayonet. it was not a musket that was good it was that thing on the front that with a guy. we didn't have them. that was one of the reason that the british won. a guy coming out with a bayonet

at you. so as things got better the tactics did not change and they slaughter is history. we know what happens as a result. finally, the word was passed a little bit lately tactics started to change. >> going to your 15 books, i didn't really think about much but the importance of supply line. >> sure. supplies. it is easy to throw numbers around. they however, schmidt, they are marching north, one skinny little road going up and down mountains and so forth their snow and ice. how are they eating? they have a backpack. that was in the backpack? whatever is in the back is gone. what happens then? the doctors, deportment, bandages, plasma.

the blood freezes then you cannot use it. they have morphine to put in their mouth so they can give it to a guy in pain. what happens when that is gone? this supply line in every commander of any army everywhere in history of the world, is not here about that is gloriously fascinating. you never hear about that but every good commander knows what's important is people is what's happening back there. where the pfizer coming from. treat these guys and yes, this is a huge part of every one of these. >> we have john from california. good afternoon. >> hello. >> yes, hello. >> i have a question for mr. shaara. i also am dismayed about the --

mexican-american war. on st. patrick's day holiday, i celebrate with my friends, the honor and bravery of -- who joined the mexican help them. >> all right will thank you for that.>> and happy to comment. i don't know that i would celebrate that. what you're describing is a very brief history lesson here. all of the americans going into mexico. mexico at the time was a very catholic country. all catholic churches. a lot of americans though are not catholic. but two of them are. some are irish, you the irish catholics that came over. immigrants and submissively catholic, worshipers in general. they're very uncomfortable realizing they're going to a catholic country and doing what they are doing. and so, there are a number of them. the number is disputed probably about 80 perhaps give or take

who deserved the american lines for the globes the mexican. here's why i have a problem. it is one thing to say i quit. you're fighting for a cause i do not believe in. i am going home. they don't go home. they go to the other side. they pick up a rifle and they shoot back. she had americans now killing americans. and they are captured, -- there captured. a number of them are hanged. scott has to make the decision want to do with these people. it is one thing to desert, it is another thing to pick up the rifle and kill your own. so celebrating that, i do not know that i agree with that. you can make the argument that there is immorality there is a jonathan but what is the immorality killing of one of their own or killing anyone for that matter? >> according to the veterans

administration and research service, 4400 americans were killed in the american revolutionary war. after that 2.4 billion in current dollars in the mexican war 1846 to 1848. 13,000 americans, 2.4 billion. the civil war -- estimates are all over the board on that one. 79, $80 billion. world war i. one year of us involvement, 116,000 deaths. and then after world war ii, 407,000 deaths, $4.1 trillion in cost. korean war, 54,000 deaths. 341 billion dollars. in washington d.c. right here in the city, go ahead --

>> mr. shaara, thank you. from the beginning you talked about -- being 95 percent authentic i think. many of the other places, the battlefield and memorials and they are still conserved by the national park service. i am curious, when you go to these places, many times national park service focuses on the history in terms of the fact and the names of the regiments and who was wearing and when they moved. and so on. yet, they are archived as tremendous treasures. everything from the mantle clock from the uss arizona from the war in the pacific to the bible with many holes through it and even lincolns coat that he wore at ford's theater.

i am just curious how all of this has informed you or have you taken advantage of all of that and tried to get into the heads of all of these people that you write so well about. >> thank you. the short answer to your question is yes. absolutely. the park service, to their credit, they have limited resources. when you go to the visitor center there will be exhibits and museums. gettysburg has a really good one. when you can see a lot of these artifacts. you're talking at the ground, it is hard for them to have the resources to tell the story the way i tell it. i don't mean to sound facetious here. i am going to say something stupid here but if you go to the bookstore maybe they will have my books on sale. that being said, it is extremely, one reason i go this route. i do not tell you, shiloh, where the impacts and things

that really got to me, there is a monument at shiloh that -- lost six bugbears. what that means is that every time someone is carrying the flag and gets shot another guy comes on picks up and carries it.six of them. six were killed. there is a monument. and so, my character, is in the 16th wisconsin. that is why. because i respect just without monument told me about what those men went through. the exhibits, i will pick up tidbits all over the place from things exactly like that. definitely, that is why i tried to go to the ground. >> email from susan. there's been a lot of discussion in the last few years about the blurred line between creative nonfiction and historical fiction. how do you distinguish between these two genres?

for example, do you invent secondary characters? or will do so custody playing with the facts in a way that you do not allow yourself? >> i am not sure what the nonfiction, what that term actually means. i still believe i am writing historical fiction. the facts are there and they are accurate. and i've said before, i begin this to death all over the country. it is a novel by definition because you are there you are hearing the dialogue. occasionally, by then not even a secondary, a tertiary character. someone way down will serve a function. regardless of what the character may be. all the characters, the primary voices you hear, they are all based on real people. as i said earlier, we have an eisenhower or patton or someone like that, it is an easy research, it is the anonymous one that you never heard of that is tougher.

those tend to be composites of several people. so the experiences all happen. there are accurate. maybe just not that one person. and that really, in my world, that is what i do. people, if they are in the same kind of thing they can go all over the place. >> we have taught, retired colonel, us marine corps. who is your favorite character to research? >> annamarie might be surprised. he probably wants to hear -- which actually would, that would be a terrific marine. i had a lot of fun with that character. going back to the beginning, my favorite character is benjamin franklin. yeah, i know. i get that response. i know exactly -- [laughter] i mentioned earlier, when you are writing grim stories, world war i comes to mind. you need humor.

i hate the term comic relief. it is not comic relief. but it is the reality of human beings. you need that character who makes you smile and makes you laugh because there's a lot of bad stuff going on. after a while, you don't want to read anymore bad stuff. we just become non- were immune to it. franklin is that character. he is funny! i love the man. one way that question has been asked, who would you like to have lunch with? benjamin franklin, absolutely. >> -- california, you are on the air. >> yes, jeff, michael tells a story years ago as a young man he was hitchhiking to pennsylvania. and he slipped on the grounds at gettysburg. and he says the ghosts of gettysburg scared the crap out of him. what can you tell us about the ghosts of war?

>> first of all, the ghost surgeon business in gettysburg is an industry. i think there's something 13 different ghost touring companies and they do landmark business. i'm not necessarily a subscriber of that. i do know people that have had very intense experiences. i will not go into details on that. i will tell you a funny story for this qucbec the gentleman before. when we were put in gettysburg, you have an magnificent horseman in full uniform. they had to move them from one side of the battlefield to the other. they were filming something and am about to put the horses in, they were running out of daylight. and they say this just right it is quicker. so rather than go through all the trouble we're just going to write across the battlefield.

imagine, you are from iowa and you're out there go on a ghost tour that night walking across the battlefield here comes general john bell hood and his staff running across the battlefield. i've often wonder when people saw that, if they pretended they did not see it. because they were in full uniform and looked just like them! i often wondered how many people thought that a major ghost experience seeing that. i'm not ridiculing that at all. believe me. it is a very serious thing to a lot of people. there been some interesting experiences that i have heard of around that town get after that there are others in different sites, revolutionary worksites wearing the same thing. i've never had an experience like that. it might be interesting if i did. it might change my perspective. a lot of people do. >> does it at significance that ike's farm is at gettysburg? >> yes. i'm doing an event there in

september. in mid-september at the eisenhower farm i will do a book signing. to help my marketing. it is beautiful. absolutely beautiful! he loved the area. and after world war ii, he retired. even after he died, it was quite a few years later, my wife actually was a ranger at the eisenhower farm. i've taken the tour. ...

fifteen books in total. his web site is jeffshaara.com, and he has been our guest on this special fiction edition of "in depth." next month it's novelist walter mosley.