it [inaudible conversations] >> over the years booktv has covered hundreds of books on foreign affairs such as american university sarah snyder on america's inclusion of human rights activism in foreign policy. .. >> we are having technical problems with live coverage. >> proudly supports the arts and humanities and please today bring you this fabulous event in part from sponsors and our

volunteers, when you see one of them, please say thank you. i also want to give a shot-out from c-span book tv, supporters over the years, thank you very much, c-span book tv. a quick few announcements, silence all devices, we hope you are following the book festival, you're on facebook, instagram and twitter, if you post something use #bgf. we really value your feedback at the festival. we have surveys at the tent and online and by summiting a survey you'll where entered into drawing and presentation books are on sale. a quick word about my book.

40 years of experience in national security, preparedness and research analysis working with the government, military and the private sector, from washington as deputy intelligence adviser and agency, he supported teens that negotiated five international treaties and agreements from 2001 to 2011. his expertise expanded to homeland security, assisted in planning, implementation and assessment of 4 national level counterterrorism exercises, even in retirement phil has kept busy in fema health corp.s for super storm sandy. his book advocating overlord,

story to liberate europe debated by the brits and americans and how that become linked to other corporations. i really enjoyed the book. he has served in the navy and communications. thank you for your services. army retiree, phil has interested trained. he maybe from maryland but let's give them all a warm welcome.

[applause] >> however, 75 years ago may 19th, it was hot and humid and inside the federal reserve building on the second floor, the commanders from britain and the united states, they were attempting differences on what strategy to use. the way i came to this, many years ago i became aware of a fishing trip, franklin roosevelt taught 760 miles northwest of here, up in the canadian shield country and in later years when i was working in back rooms

supporting national discussions and negotiations which is always a contentious and demanding process from time to time, i wondered about that fishing trip. literally the global capital for allies running the war in that time. how could he lead in a critical point in deciding how to go forward, so it led so very interesting places as i hope you will agree. so some background, the beginning of 1943 saw the allies at a very important turning point. in three pivotal battles midway, they had beaten off the threat of defeat in 1942, now they were going on the offensive against and the big challenge for the americans and the british was how best to win in europe.

they had different national circumstances and different goals for how the war should end and britain and the united states favored different strategies, a more basic problem was that they did not trust each other. the baggage of suspicion and resentment over years since world war i, made it hard for both countries to trust the other and that's a lesson for our time. damaging relationships cannot be restored it's like flipping a switch. even when both parties are facing existential threat. the british americans. >> struggling with their own internal divisions. the british chiefs of staff under churchill micro management of the war, action of this day, memoranda and churchill himself had doubts about whether or not his generals could deliver victory. the american joint chiefs of

staff struggled to under the politics by which their commander in chief had to contend and they despair that fdr's resolve to standby the position that they advocated under churchill's sun lamp which they came to call it often. with global interest for empire in limited and shrinking resources and fear of repeating the warfare of world war i, the british advocated and was interpreted at that time. one to have lessons was the aerial bombing from both sides, produced the theory that -- and this was truil in all of the industrialized nations, the united states and also in japan as well as europe. countries population could be induce today force their governments to change their policy by bombing and bombing

civilians was legitimate act of war. use of unproven instrument of aerial bomb to go force collapse of germany which is how world war i had ended and they thought that hitler's right would be forced to the same point. both british and americans called that an opportunistic strategy. the united states drawn into the war from isolationist view of the world had 3 goals, we wanted to win in europe, pivot defeat of japan and come home. now, that was why the united states favored crossing the english channel and crossing north western europe and into

german and they called the strategy, the goal of the strategy was achieving direct military result which is how they contrast as the british strategy to fdr, suddenly promo -- prominently, the world view, politics was changing and adapting to how they saw the national security needs of the united states and post world war and they were begin to go -- beginning to accept and adjust to that so that by november, third goal coming home was going to get dropped and they embraced a long-term position of the united states as part of world security which is true for our day.

going forward, the allies need today agree on a goal, they needed a strategy, they needed to concentration of force and commander. none of that had been agreed. moving closer and closer to share the strategy debate was a separate issue. the rupture of american and british cooperations to develop an atomic bomb. how did that come about? at the end of 1942, the american decide today shut the british scientists out of most of top secret work to develop the bomb. the u.s. scientists position was to at least outwardly that britain did not have the, quote, need to know, close, quote for a lot of the information in order to contribute to what they could do to win the current war. they concluded that the united states was doing 90% of the

work, 90% of the investment and they treated what britain saw according to that. they believed that their position what was fdr wanted. now, churchill who opposed the u.s. strategy to come across the channel also intensely wanted a british atomic bomb. he saw post world war dominated by the united states and soviet union and in that world britain needed a bomb of its own for independence, were his words. so -- so he had this and you could see how this could start moving together and it did.

apparently for own national reasons, both sides were encouraging the issues to come together particularly among fdr and churchill. notably a lot of generals didn't know about both strategy negotiations and the bomb, where they did have the convergence of knowledge and how they talked about it. now the evidence for the convergence is circumstantial but quite extensive and personally i found it persuasive that they did come to a conjunction in august of 1942 that led to quid pro quo, while all of this was happening, the plan for operation overlord had to be created, while the top people were arguing. so long as there was no plan for cross-channel attack, both of the allies could agree could

succeed, it was easy to push back against advocates for that idea. now, the british and the americans did agree to establish an ally-planning team in london in march of 1943 which was going to be led by the newly designated chief of staff to the supreme ally commander and the title name for the group came from the commander's title, coss, the best name of all time. they were given order to develop deceptions to be engaged and degraded and, you know, that was the benefit of either strategy and then second to develop come as you are options for short-notice response for collapse by going back into the

continent and last was the plan, cross-channel intact, it started out with the enormous challenges. what they had to do plan for the most difficult military maneuver, at that time there was no precedent for success with that. they had no defined strategic goal, no knowledge, what resources they would have to plan for and no one was samed supreme allied commander. they didn't have a champion for all of the competing things going on around the world wanting, divide scarce resources, one thing that they did have was a justified sense that none of all of the seniors wanted them to succeed. however, cost act was compromised of a younger generation of officers who were eager to work together to take the fight to the enemy rand they were not burdened by the distrust that plagued the american chiefs. british and lieutenant general,

morgan, he had an american deputy, ray barker, they bonded immediately. in their first meeting, morgan sniffed a brass button from artillery uniform and traded it to barker, they went to meetings and elsewhere wearing a token of ally cooperation. they did get chided but they truly bonded and young officers bonded with them. morgan purposely concluded its talk to his young officers by telling them what the chief of the imperil staff had told him about orders, well, there it is, it won't work but you must bloody-well make it. morgan took the challenge.

by the summer of 1943, the allies were approaching a crisis and with that a decision point. there was going to be another ally conference, quadrant in quebec in august and in decisions negative effects by that time were having serious consequences for the allies' position. the united states because of indecision about 76% short of number of troops that they expected to have deployed in europe by that time. and then they had -- that meant that they had neither from england nor from the mediterranean, concentration of allied forced to defeat the axis. one of the key u.s. overlord advocates, major general thomas handy, the most important fit was strategy and stick wit and he went onto say that there was a risk, if they didn't do that, there was a risk of stalemate or, quote, complete victory

indefinitely postponed. from london, an exacerbated, one of churchill's closest adviser and advocate for the american position, wrote to counterpart harry hopkins, roosevelt's adviser, if we are not prepared to accept the risks, face the difficulties, suffer casualties, then we should concentrate exclusively on construction of heavy bombers and think in terms of 1950. i don't know about you, but i don't within the to contemplate about war in 1950. meanwhile high-level appeals to restore atomic cooperation n london this was seen as a real crisis and they were begin to go come with accusations of american breaking of oral commitments. in july, u.s. secretary of war henry met with churchill in london where a proposed draft

solution to restore atomic cooperation emerged and a sign of how close the proximity of strategy negotiation, atomic cooperation had come. churchill and stenson then sent all of the atomic advisers out of the room, closed the door and the two of them alone then discussed strategy and stenson reported to fdr, had hammer and tongue. partly through stemson in london, they learned and were alarmed to learn that churchill was coming to north america to conference early, with the intent of influencing fdr's position. now jcs intent on winning strategy point quadrant and they had to have fdr on their side. at that point the president's position, the overlord strategy was very much in doubt. not helping was that some of the

staff in pentagon were openly arguing that the mediterranean strategy should take priority over cross-channel attack as the bird in hand. the u.s. army's official history subtitles that and converting doubters among operational commanders in britain and producing a credible plan. as july ended all of these factors and others were in motion and were beginning to come together. on the evening of friday july 30th, 1943, winston churchill was prepare to go sail to north america, prime minister intent on arriving early to win over roosevelt to the british position on allied-strategy for victory in the war in europe even before the start of the annual american quadrant conference. and sir john anderson. the head of churchill's atomic

research live from london to negotiate british participation which had been withheld. the new government in rome that it replaced mucalini5 days earlier was dispatching out of conflict. moscow, joseph stalin was pondering whether he could leave moscow to meet secretly with roosevelt and secretary at war henry simpson was flying back to washington from his meeting in london determine today persuade fdr to insist that churchill accept the u.s. military's position on strategy to win in europe based on cross-channel assault into normandy and further insist that american serve as ally commander. roosevelt, the focus of the hopes of each was quietly leaving down to go fishing. now, all of roosevelt's wartime trips out of the capital were

secret. normally the white house would inform trusted reporters, get your heads around that idea, very generally the president was leaving town and why and it's okay, the young buck -- this time no, they didn't do that. they left without telling anyone. so by monday the world was realizing that roosevelt wasn't in the white house. the rumors got wilder and wilder day by day and desperate to respond white house press secretary steve early pleaded by cable for permission to tell the public system. roosevelt wouldn't allow it. this was too much fun. on receiving the latest batch of cables and rumors fdr was heard to tell military aide and buddy,

i guess we gave them the good this time. although he had told churchill about the trip in advance, fdr had also given the prime minister the slip by cutting 10 days off the window of tuned for churchill to meet with him in advance of quadrant and try to influence him and that well may be why to the relief of jcs, the white house took the plan of the fishing trip off the shelf where it sat for a year activated on very short notice. fdr's absence from the city also left sir john anderson with no one to talk to about -- about atomic cooperation except for bush, roosevelt's science adviser and fdr knew that bush would hold a hard line, so the president gone, secretary

simpson started writing toys trip report with his emphatic recommendations to fdr to take charge of this and in that, he warn fdr to be constantly on the alert for mediterranean diversions. stenson wanted to take report personally but marshal wouldn't allow it. marshal had learned how to get a firm decision out of fdr that he would stick with and that was to put a well-argued paper before him when the president was away from the distractions of the white house, prefer bli with harry hopkins there to discuss it with him. so while the revert against overlord was going on down the hall in pentagon, they were hoping that it would arrive

eminently. after the war, general eisenhower served that plans are nothing and planning is everything. there's a lot of truth in that. emergency in london of outlined plan, three atheyachievable conditions had the potential to change the debate from whether to go with the cross-channel attack plan to how to implement it. the british chiefs of staff in london following churchill and advocating the mediterranean strategy, they knew that and they also knew that the u.s. joint chiefs of staff in washington were facing a strategy crisis of confidence within their staff. the next meeting at this point was only a couple of weeks away. cross act was ordered to send a team to brief churchill during's

crossing to north america but told not to share their plan with washington just yet. lieutenant general morgan instead he risked his british army career and did the right thing by sharing his plan with the country's ally. he sent a team of three american officers carrying the overlord plan to catch from scotland over to washington and the team snuck out of london to board the ghost train. but when they got to scotland everything stopped, they were seriously delayed by weather over the atlantic, they did arrive to washington, reported in the nick of time. since paper was flown up to canada, first of three communication that is arrived within just hours that would cause him to agree to be the

primary champion of overlord. he read the simpson paper. they were discussing that, a communication came from churchill that sure enough advocated a diversion and a third message arrived from the u.s. ambassador in london who would check churchill's fact and found them to be faulty. >> to be able to compare those three documents side by side, fdr changed position but he didn't tell anybody about it until he got back to washington and met with the joint chiefs of stemson. they were elated. if fdr could hold meeting. churchill believed that he could manipulate roosevelt and only a couple days before he told the

canadian prime minister, he's a fine fellow but comes around, not this time. when they met at high park, churchill expected he would get the atomic agreement he wanted and hold to strategy but fdr would not give in and would not go to quebec with him until later on and when he did, two things happened, both men needed a commitment from the other in writing. first thing that happened was the generals agree to overlord and hours later fdr and churchill signed a secret agreement to resume nuclear cooperation. thought turned to action and the u.s. moved a million troops across atlantic in eight months to create invasion force in britain as new fact on the ground so this would be irreversible. after that hot meeting in may, 75 years, may 19, they did come to a fragile agreement, nobody expected to hold and it didn't and then thunderstorm broke the

heat. thank you, i'm delighted to take questions. [applause] >> how long did it take you to write the book? [inaudible] >> how long did it take you to write the book? [inaudible] >> i will repeat the question. the question was how long did it take to write the book and what surprised me? >> it was about 8 years which i guess is not too unusual. one thing that was surprising to me although it shouldn't have been was how much the perceived lessons of world war i influenced the thinking of people planning for world war ii which is very different circumstances. the conclusion about aerial bombing was absolutely wrong. after the war, the u.s. strategic bombing served found that bombing achieved

practically nothing in terms of germany's wartime production, 600,000 people in europe were killed and the german people reaction to the bombing, they knew what was happening to the jews and other minorities and they felt that that was something that was in the past that they couldn't change and they simply resolved to endure, so it's a lot of suffering for not a lot of result, a loss of lives of very courageous airmen. yes, sir. >> this may be irrelevant. after all this study, do you think that overlord -- [inaudible] >> the question was overlord the best plan against the other alternatives? that's a very good question. people are still debating that. the british had a view of europe which had its points and in

thinking of terms of post world war and where the soviets were and allies were, but i would think on balance it was important to get in and end the war quickly. had it not ended in 1945, millions more people would have died and it's very likely atomic bombs would have been used and the post war situation between the western allies and the soviets would have been even worse than it was. >> is there any discussion on the american side -- [inaudible] >> the question was did americans discuss about not disclosing anything about the atomic bomb project? >> the need to know cut a lot of different ways. the american scientists did not know about the strategies cushion, so they weren't part of that. they were looking strictly internally what they needed to complete the bomb and whether or

not britain could do it. they didn't want to share with britain first because they thought that britain would get an advantage, post war advantage in production of atomic power and then later they were concerned that it wasn't within roosevelt's war powers to extend this knowledge to them for the british clearly could not use to win the war for which congress had given them those powers. so they -- the two senior civilian leaders, bush and deputy, they did not want to share general groves, he didn't want to share and they sort of reluctantly came to the conclusion, well, there could be a quid pro quo because there was some information the british had that they needed and they didn't think that the president of the united states might be looking at a broader horizon to define a quid pro quo.

the diplomatic history of the manhattan project wasn't declassified until 1975 which is why i think that this doesn't show up in other histories but it's very interesting to go read the letters between bush and connan, when they start talking about arm's control, talking about the possibility of super bomb for which the atomic bomb would be a trigger, very early stage. worried and they weren't talking to each other. >> i'm sorry. >> when dido sen hour enter the picture as the supreme ally commander? >> the question of who would be the supreme ally commander hung there until the end of november 1943 and it's interesting that when fdr went

on the battleship over to go to first cairo and then tehran, had to joint chief of staff and had very important meetings and during meetings he was president, fdr said that it was his thinking that marshal should command. although marshal wanted that petition very badly, he would not ask for it. commander is not named, this isn't a real operation and roosevelt, i will tell you in a week. got back to cairo just after thanksgiving. eisenhower would be the supreme allied commander and you can see the message over at national

archives. >> our time is up. >> thank you very much, it's been wonderful to talk to you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> that was author philip padgett, starting in just a few minutes author joseph esposito will talk about book, 49 nobel prize with the kennedys, stay with us, back with more live coverage. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> and now live from the gaithersburg. joseph on 1962 white house dinner with nobel prize winners. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, and welcome to the gaithers burkes rg. my name is paul, i'm a volunteer a city that proudly supports

arts an humanities, we are please today bring you event thanks in generous support of sponsors and volunteers, when you see them, please say thanks. a few announcement. silence all devices and we are hoping that you follow gbf on twitter, use gbf hash tag, surveys are available on tent and our website by submitting survey. they'll be entered into a drawing for a 100-dollar visa card. joseph will be signing book immediately following in author section a, copies of book are on sale on tent. a quick note of buying books, it does help the book festival if we buy books. the more books we sell at event the more publishers and authors will want to send authors here to speak to us. purchasing books from our

partner politics and pros, helps support one of the independent bookstores, benefits local economy and local jobs. so if you enjoy the program and you're in position to do so, please buy a book. i have my copy and i hope that you will get one as well. joseph esposito is historian, writer and he served in three presidential administration, most recently under deputy secretary of international affairs and held various positions for 11 years and was a working group chair for the commission of free cuba which submitted the report to president george bush in 2004. he also had taught history at three colleges and is currently associate professor at northern virginia community college. one thing of the kennedy of the kennedy administration, the legendary kingdom of king author and the knights of the round

table, indeed, kennedy's administration, a thousand brief days in office are remembered for the style and elegance that kennedy brought to modern presidency. the dinner on april 29th, 1962 for the best and the brightest, dubbed the egg-head roll from the white house lawn and allegation president kennedy vigorously disputed. this dinner brought together nobel, authors, statesmen and scientists for one glorious night. robert and more than 100 luminaries. that day a week after easter when the becon on the hill showed brightly in washington, you had a nuclear nonproliferation protestor, you had a scientist super star

falling from grace on the roads of redemption. we do not serve brains, the main course is beef welling tennessee. it is my pleasure to welcome to the stage joseph esposito, author. [applause] >> thank you, thank you very much and thank you all for being here. it's a rather soggy day. first of all, i want to ask, how many people are aware of this dinner that took place in 1962, the nobel dinner, any familiarity with it? okay, well, i'm going to tell you a little more about it and hopefully you will find it as fascinating as i found it when i was doing the research and

writing of the book. first of all, it took place on a a day, april 29th, it was allusion of easter egg heads, it was a week after easter, it was first day of daylight savings time and the midpoint of the kennedy administration and it was, i think, it was a highlight of the really highlight of camelot. people were seated in two large rooms in the white house, state dining room which was presided over by president kennedy and then the blue room presided over by mrs. kennedy. so the 49 nobel prize winners were honored and these were not idle egg heads. they were responsible for some of the most important

achievements of the 20th century, one was responsible work on anemia, work on mechanics, many worked on manhattan project. two nobel peace prize winners were there, one worked on palestine and one on the suess crisis. glen who was president's kennedy chairman of atomic energy commission was actually responsible for 10 chemical elements. so the list really goes on and on. it literally was a who's who of american intellectuals in mid century. some people may be aware that the most famous line from that evening which was part of president's remarks, i think this is the most extraordinarily collection of talent of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the white

house with the possible exception of when thomas jefferson dined alone. [laughter] >> a great clip but actually jefferson rarely dined alone and often had people over for dinner and kept runningaly of -- tally of people who dined at the mansion. many distinguished people were at the dinner and part of that evening, i will tell you a little bit about those people, some people actually declined, tennessee williams did, carl sanburg, declined because he had another commitment, william faulkner who lived in charlottesville, it's too far to go for a meal. hehe was ill but that was his

response. you heard about the brain's dinner and i just want to elaborate more on that. trish was secretary having various meetings with her staff to talk about preparation for the evening and renee who was born in france, didn't really grasp the american idioms and he was quite concerned about the idea that there was going to be the brain's dinner and he was horrified that he would have to prepare the brain and, indeed, there was the good luck that he was -- he was able to serve beef wellington instead. [laughter] >> i would like to say a word about jackie kennedy and her role in this. she was very much engaged in all these events at the white house. she did post mordums but she had

tremendous impact in the white house in the course of my research and writing for this book, i came to have a distinct appreciation for what she had done, she created the office of white house, she established the fine arts committee which was a group of artists, tried to get art and furnishings back to the white house where they originally were placed. indeed, the blue room where she was the hostess for that evening, was really at that the -- on that night restored to where it had been during the administration of james monroe and a number of the furnishings were purchased by monroe. she also launched the white house's historical association and two months before this dinner, she gave the very

celebrated tour of the white house which was on cbs. she was actually the first woman to get -- well, she got an emmy for the presentation but was the first woman to be featured in a documentary on television. so, great, great accomplishment for mrs. kennedy in terms of work with the white house and on this dinner as well. the most controversial people at the dinner pauling, he received a nobel prize for chemistry in 1954 but had become peace activist and he was concerned that there wasn't sufficient progress being made on an agreement with the soviet union on nuclear testing. so he had written a number of letters to president kennedy and, in fact, they were quite

stride and he compared kennedy to hit we -- hitler, so he was t there picketing the day before and he and his wife went to hotel, changed clothes, went into dinner and in the reception line, president kennedy said to pauling, well, dr. pauling, i see that you have been around the white house a few times. [laughter] >> before introducing him to the first lady, he said, i hope you will continue to express your opinions. now mrs. kennedy was not as gracious, she said, dr. pauling, my little girl wants to know what has daddy done wrong today. [laughter] >> clearly the most controversial guest was jay robert, the father of the atomic bomb, who i think you may have heard little bit about if you were here in the previous discussion. lost his security clearance in

1954 and this was part of an effort by president kennedy and people in the white house staff to -- to initiate some sort of public redemption form and released from purgatory and this was part of two-step process. later on he was given award, selected for award from president kennedy. other people at the dinner who were significant and it was just such an incredible list of -- of people included james baldwin. james baldwin had met robert kennedy that night for the first time, met president kennedy intel and -- as well, a year later they got together and had meeting on civil rights in new york in which baldwin assembled a small group of african-american leaders

including lorraine and others and it was identified by some as the most contentious meeting they had ever seen and yet it was significant because it had implications for basically helping robert kennedy understand better the concerns of african americans on the issues of segregation and -- and other racial issues, so it was important and it was outgrowth of this dinner. william was there. baldwin was living on william's property at the time in connecticut. william and rose stiren, would later go onto write confessions of turner and -- and sofi's choice. they established -- the stirens and the kennedys established a friendship which lasted till

today, robert kennedy and his family and ted kennedy as well. john glenn was there, the hero of the hour, he sat at mrs. kennedy's table. he had just orbited the earth. anyone who wanted to talk to john glenn would soon run for the senate for ohio for the first time, lester pearson, canadian liberal party leader, won nobel peace prize on suess crisis, he would be elected prime minister of canada the following year. robert frost was there, he was 88, he was a magnet all evening for people. of course, frost was -- had become famous for his reciting of the gift outright poem in inago intraición -- inauguration and president kennedy would send him on a mission, cultural affairs mission to the soviet

union. katherine anne porter was there, she had written one novel, she mostly wrote short stories but her one novel on that very day reached number one in "the new york times" best seller list. only nobel female was there, mary hemmingway, as mentioned in the introduction, she sat at president's kennedy table but she also got into an argument over cuba policy that hemmingway had lived in cuba for 20 years and had perspective on the day of pigs which is not shared by kennedy and also fidel castro. people enjoyed themselves that evening even those who would have ordinarily had been uncomfortable for one reason or another. pauling even though he was

picketing enjoyed himself, he was a great dancer and he liked to tango and he liked to waltz, he and his wife started some improv to dancing. look, jack, they are dancing. and the after-dinner entertainment of the literary presentation was made by distinguished actor. sinclair lewis, marshal, outlining the marshal plan at harvard university. great bulk of literary presentation that evening was an unpublished work by ernst hummingway, originally they were going to do killers which would have been a terrible choice but

it was a presentation that eventually became islands in the stream and published in 1970. a select few after the evening was over were invited up to the yellow room in the private residence. william stiren provided interesting insights into the evening said that -- recounts how when a social aide came up to him to say that the president would like you and mrs. stiren to come to the residence he said that -- [laughter] >> the train is passing. he said -- i knew it. he's after my wife. [laughter] >> well, as it turns out they had a great evening and made plans for sailing with the kennedys in a couple of months.

robert frost was there and diane was there. it was a select group of about a dozen people. so i will be glad to talk more about the people that were there and the interactions, relationships which are really fascinating, the back stories really, it's the source -- could be the source for numerous books but i just want to say in conclusion that no dinner had ever been held like this at the white house previously and no dinner has been held since. it can be argued that this was the most significant dinner at the white house in the 20th century. perhaps even the dinner of the century and one book reviewer, very kindly called it, the greatest dinner party of all time. it's a fascinating story, the interaction of people and it also, i think, says something

about the role of the white house and i think it has some message for us today in our period of political polarization. john kennedy worked on conciliation, redemption, civility and also highlighting america's greatest thinkers and intellectuals, not only thanking them for their contribution to the united states which was immense and their contribution to the world as well but also encouraging as he said in his remarks that night trying to encourage young people to emulate them. i will be happy to answer any questions that you have. [applause] [inaudible] >> the question is why haven't there been more, well, that's a

good question. and i think -- i think we have to give credit to the kennedys for highlighting at the very outset of the kennedy administration the role that musicians and artists and scholars and writers played in american society and they had a number of these types of events in which people or cross section of people were invited to the white house and this was a culmination in many ways. [inaudible] >> maybe i can expand on that. is there a concern about elite i have -- elitism, that the president might be viewed as elitist and therefore they don't hold these meetings anymore? >> well, i couldn't really answer that. [laughter]

[inaudible] [laughter] >> i think it would be unlikely. in terms of the question of elitism. i don't think it's elitist to say that we have great writers and great scientists and great artists and we want to, again, showcase their work on behalf of the american people. that's a great thing about jackie kennedy. she saw the white house as a living museum and also as a salon of sorts and i don't think there's anything negative about the white house being a symbol of america and also saying that these are people who really have made tremendous contributions and we want everybody to know about them.

also i would add that the opportunity for these people to mingle, to interact with one another is -- is significant. yes. >> thank you so much for your talk and your book. you mentioned the person who discovered streomiacin. which other sciencives or researchers were at the dinner? >> there were primarily scientists and interestingly many were associated with the university of california at berkeley and, in fact, president kennedy had been -- had been at berkeley, had been at berkeley months before and had spoken there and in his speech he said, which was accurate that there are as many nobel prize winners of this institution at berkeley than have been produced by

nearest rival the soviet union. so they worked on a lot of different issues on -- let's see a lot of work which is beyond my grasp. [laughter] >> but people who did work on physics which were -- which was related to the manhattan project. .. ..

had lived at woods hole which was an oceanographic center and she assumed when he is talking about muscles that he was talking about marine life. and she kept talking about the muscles. finally he had to tell her he was talking about muscles. [laughter] >> all right, well, thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you for attending the 2018 festival. the book festival will be held saturday, may 18, 2018, and remember to complete a survey firsthand, $100 after the gift card. the signing will be in 10 minutes in line 7 in the signing area. [inaudible conversations] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2, live coverage of the gaithersburg maryland book

festival. that was joseph esposito talking about dinner in camelot. we will be back with more live coverage, next up is another discussion on the abolitionists of the civil war. >> here is a look at the office recently featured on booktv's afterwards, or weekly interview program that has best-selling nonfiction book and guest interviewers.

>> it is hard to face death if that is what you are like. i'm not a buddhist but i don't think -- you have to lose your self in your work, your art, the movement and death becomes incidental because i consider my long involvement in the women's movement and the movement for economic justice.

when i'm gone, it will go on. other people will do things i have been doing or do them better. that is good. it is not scary. wonderful. one of my tasks in old age is to reproduce myself, to help younger writers, writers of color, people in poverty become journalists and get a start, and those are like children to me. children are amazing. >> that is true. >> that is one of the jobs of being old, passing the torch, taking what you know or have accomplished or want done and passing it on to younger hands.

>> every saturday at 10:00 eastern and sunday at 9:00 eastern and pacific. all previous are available watch on her website, booktv.org. >> the place you are looking for was called funai using. the name of the village went obsolete when the communists took the mainland in 1949, and change street names and town names with the registry in new york city, no one had ever heard of the place. at a nearby police station officers said the land offered less. pedestrians, food peddlers, for some sign of it. the inquiries to predict sequence and initial moment of hope, divergent from the main topic and the phrase neutral. it is not very clear.

i approached a middle-aged man with a crew cut in the face whether by life of farming. before he can talk his way out i pounce quickly. this much i have learned as a reporter in china. when you spot your prey you cannot hesitate. we are looking for a place called flying -- fool by using. and then he says that again 3 times as loud. and i will skip to this man moving on to a third topic, shanghai, places too crowded, too chaotic, looking down on us countryfolk. traveling by yourself, he asks? my father is with me, he lives in america. so foo ma ying, can you help me

find it? another pause. it is not very clear so i move on. i lived in china for a dozen years. i have taken years of mandarin lessons, i have written a poem, my understanding of china, it is not very clear, it has legalistic flexibility. every time i graphed a new context for the fraser turns up in a new way. it means these things. i can't help you. i don't know. i won't help you. i don't want to tell you, i will get in trouble if i tell you, you don't deserve to know and i am moving on now. people make the clarets or he statements with certainty. adequate, and i reach into their pockets so to complete

the circle very quickly we were spinning our wheels in 2009 and finally we get a tip, my news assistant calls from shanghai 5 hours away and says i found something, a town that is close to the village you are looking for, so we go to the town and find this guy and ask him have you heard of this place? haven't lived for too long but i know a guy, he gets into the van. and this guy gets in and calls a friend on the outskirts of this little town and we drive there and find another friend who is a native and he says this is familiar but i know a guy, and he will know where it is, just a clown car and the third person gets into the car, gets quiet, like a priest walked into the vehicle and

stepped in, the party secretary. that is the most important member of the communist party even in this forlorn place, the person who makes all the decisions. he leads us to the village which is a basic place, certainly not paid, next to the creek and the houses are very basic, each home has a spot of land to grow a few vegetables, there is no indoor plumbing, the bathroom, the outhouse and another for cooking, you have been in these basic chinese villages before and the economics, send somebody out to a big city to make some money and send it back. otherwise it doesn't end so what we learn about my great-grandfather is he was a student who in the late 1800s went to japan. he was part of the early

scholar generation when china is remarkably weak toward the end of imperial china and intellectuals are going to modern place to learn about the ideas and outside and how they can help china and japan. >> you can watch this and other programs online. >> here is a look at current best-selling nonfiction books according to indy bounds, a group of independent bookstores affiliated with the american booksellers association.

>> look at some of the best-selling books continues. she will discuss the program on afterwards this weekend. wrapping up our look at the books from indy bounds at non-fiction list is clinical psychologist jordan peterson at self-help book 12 rules for life which many of the fathers have appeared on booktv.

you can watch them on our website booktv.org. booktv tapes hundreds of other programs throughout the country all year long. here is a look at some of the events we will be covering this week. on tuesday we will be at the chappaqua public library in new york where the former president of planned parenthood and daughter of the late texas governor ann richards will reflect on her personal and professional life. also on tuesday, at kramer books in washington dc, a group of pilots who surreptitiously set up a base in burma to defend china and were some of the first americans to engage japan following the attack on pearl harbor. later will be at the mechanics institute in san francisco for a talk on the life of the late san francisco politician harvey mills was one of the first

openly gay elected officials in america who was assassinated in 1977. on wednesday, laurence tribe and joshua max will be a politics and prose bookstore in the nation's capital to provide history of impeachment and its role in politics today. that is a look at some of the events booktv will be covering this we, many are open to the public. look for them to air in the near future on booktv on c-span2. >> booktv is live at the gaithersburg book festival in maryland. up next off a discussion on civil war abolitionists.

>> good morning, welcome, everybody hear me okay, do i have to get too closer too far? i appreciate your coming out today. an unusual weather day, i have been here when the weather is worse. it can be worse. i was really pleased to be the moderator of this group, we are writing very interesting books. and let me introduce paul a whitaker. paula worked as a freelance writer for many years. organizations and government agencies, web content, articles, reports, and education, and the foreign

service officer in costa rica for forest reorganization and environmental education project funded by usaid, she went into freelance work and has been doing just fine. there is hope. we have, she is a native of new london, connecticut. i will let paula explain how she got interested in the civil war. >> you heard from that introduction there is no connection with the civil war in my background but i have always been interested in local history. i'm originally from connecticut, alexandria in the 80s. local history often becomes civil war history. i have been doing work for alexandria archaeology, the union hospital, came across the

diary of a woman who wrote about her experiences and that woman was named julia. i came across an unknown person who had principles, who managed to act on her principles and do great things and most important for us 150 years later leave a diary of everyone, she was into abolitionist circles, frederick douglass and susan b anthony, in 1862 she was having a family at the time, she was in a depressed state, was asked to come down here in the midst of the civil war and seized the opportunity to spend the rest of her life in alexandria, washington during the civil war. she was working for the rights of african-americans, it was

union occupied. and into that area, they could remain free. that was her mission, her struggle for purpose. she was one of the first generations of female government workers, works for suffrage so coming from quiet background, and a pretty momentous life. >> thank you very much. eugene meyer grew up in the suburbs. since january 2004 has been freelance writer, he worked for three decades at the washington post as a reporter and editor, he had 50 bylines in the new york times, he worked with bethesda magazine as a contributing editor. us news and world report, has also been the editor of the quarterly tme magazine since

2009. gene's writing is connected to his love of history, a sense of place about where people live, work and travel and the dynamic changes of the city especially. i guess washington dc. over his long career he interviewed justice thurgood marshall, discovered antiwar protests, spent jimmy carter at last presidential christmas in georgia and gone crabbing and oyster ring with maryland men. the clincher is he interviewed the beatles in philadelphia in 1966. jean meyer. >> i'm delighted to share the stage with my friends paul a

whitaker and they were all well-known people. the people i write about in "5 for freedom," they were not well-known and are not well-known today and undoubtedly you have heard of john brown, i wager perry anderson, shield green, lewis leary and john anthony copeland, these were the five men out of 18 that john brown led to harpers ferry on october 16, 1859. i write about not just these men, forgotten hidden figures treated as footnotes by historians but also the world into which they were born and raised and their role in the raid, their families, their lives, the aftermath and their

descendents and legacies which continued to affect us in our country today. a small story in the washington post in 2000, the plaque is dedicated in a cemetery near fedex field in maryland. it was inside the metro section and made a big impact, when i left the post in 2004 i wrote a longer article about him. through my research, i called a noted john brown scholar and said why is so little written about these men, john anderson at the time was what i was focusing on, and written the only insider account, so survivor of the raid, treated

dismissively by other historians. he said to me two reasons, one, so little known about anderson. and the other is racism. it is a challenge. and along with many african-americans after the passage of the fugitive slave act and he worked for a newspaper that was published by marianne carrie, and emigrate from the united states and her papers were howard university, so i went to see if there is more to their relationship. she published heart wrenching letters john copeland sent to his family in oberlin, ohio, just before he was executed for his role in the john brown red and i had an opinion and i thought there is a story here,

and 5 for freedom. it is an important story from the past that resonates in the present. i dedicated a lot of my career to writing about forgotten figures. the stories of not been told. i also interviewed descendents, and it seems ancient in history, so much with us today, i hope fight for freedom, made a small contribution telling their story and bring it down to the present day. >> i am going to start asking questions. if you have questions we will try to get some time toward the

end. a question about going back and finding people -- >> a common theme here. and give us a little preface about what these people's lives were like prior to their date with destiny. there date with destiny was related to the civil war. the united states at a time leading to this war. >> julia wilber did have more independence than any weapon at the time. she was the only single sibling of a group of 10, with a beautiful daughter called in when people are sick or need help or what have you. she grew up near rochester, new york. that is significant is

rochester really did have a lot of social reform movements, frederick douglass was there, susan b anthony, she became involved with these groups, she writes about teaching during the day, attending a lecture, she was exposed to these ideas. a group called the rochester ladies, anti-slavery society. and many other relief groups, sending people down south to see what they can assist during this tomatoes time. and she was 47, not the letters of introduction when she got down here. >> give a little more about that. and we gain that independence. the large family, how do they come to call on her to

sacrifice them. >> she wasn't married. that was significant for the time. her mother passed away when giving birth. she was 19 at the time. many younger siblings to take care of. that is what she did in the 20s. i look back on her life, that helped chart her course, that was prime marriageable age. married women who did not have independent autonomy. >> julia was the third donner -- >> on their own. >> she was the only one still at home. and her father remarried. >> there is a but of taking place to the whole story. everyone didn't get along all that well. she writes in her diary about

this, coming down here was as much for her own benefit. >> this is a key figure, the experiences, using that transition, how does frederick douglass play into this, john brown, the fight for freedom come together? >> frederick douglass and john brown knew each other in 1847 and tried to recruit douglas to the chatham convention in ontario adopting the provisional constitution for the republic he hoped to establish in the appalachian mountains. douglas did not attend that. in 1858, douglas was living in

rochester, and an escape slave from the charleston area. it is unclear how he came to rochester but he stayed with the douglas family for a few weeks and met john brown and learned about his plans. when john brown went to harpers ferry, he very much wanted douglas, a national figure to elevate the effort a bit. he convinced douglas to come to chambersburg pennsylvania. in august 18, '59 and meet with him. and and douglas was wary about the whole enterprise.

he was working into a perfect steel trap and never succeed and participate. as they are about to leave, and shield green said i will go with the old man. he went to harpers ferry and was captured and subsequently tried, convicted and executed in 1859 and there were some papers that were found in the kennedy farmhouse, staging area for the john brown raid that implicated frederick douglass. the governor of virginia sent marshall to rochester to bring it back, a fugitive and douglas went to england to escape capture. there was a douglas connection with one of the 5 men that i write about. >> how about the other four. is there a way to cover them?

julia has a moral purpose, what is the purpose of these? >> great question. four of the five were persons of color. we have such a nuanced history and tends to talk in terms of black and white but these men all came from a racially mixed background. i insist that they be referred to as african-americans in the subtitle. and newbie was born a slave, his father was a white man as he thought in virginia, his mother was in enslaved women henry newbie had several children, henry newbie did not own his children or his wife. they belonged to another slaveowner that came at a time

when henry newbie wanted to free them. with other slave owners consent took them all to ohio and was a ohio supreme court decision. then you are free. and that is how he became free in the underground railroad and established a union with a woman named harriet, to dr. jennings, in virginia. her owner fell into hard times and far south, it was much harsher. in hopes to liberate, with dr.

jennings for the release. the first rader guild on the streets of harpers ferry, a gruesome death. >> not able to fulfill as i recall the family suffered a great deal. >> harriet had written three letters before the raid. and please rescue me, you're my one bright hope. and in oberlin college, he worked there for a year. not a relative, they were in north carolina, being a free person of color in north carolina, a good position to be in. >> you had to leave within a

year. >> the black coats, had to be within a year. and you can voluntarily reinflate your self and they did that. that didn't affect any of these five and the final one, osprey anderson from westchester, and his father was born in virginia. his mother was scott cyrus and a redhead, he followed marianne chad carry up to canada west. and the secretary of john brown's chatham convention in 1858, of the 36 men participating in that convention he was the only one who went to harpers ferry

andrew straws -- >> it is fascinating. getting into the drama, with one particular question, how did they sacrifice themselves for the project of maintaining the union and freeing the slaves? i don't know who wants to run with that but the idea, what did they sacrifice? we touched on that a little bit. and two were killed in harpers ferry, trying to escape across the river. he left his wife and young child, and what was going. the devil may care character,

set recklessly tilted to one side. and they were captured and tried and convicted and faced the gallows in charleston, west virginia. >> any means of communicating to people after -- how they were feeling? >> copeland's letters were written from charleston jail, very effective letters to friends and family, siblings in oberlin and when i saw the letters he had written, they reprinted the potential freeman. they are beautifully written. before the execution, watched the sun rising, to the

attorney, and you read these letters you want to cry. it was so effective and they were taken to the gallows and ironically, two white raters who have been convicted with them and they were segregated in life and death, two african-american raters were executed first, and they were after them, it was a very sad situation, even the people of charleston were moved by it. i gave a talk to a group in charleston, and it was a couple months ago, gave it in a home next to the gallows and i said in your yard here is where these two men were hand and i

read john anderson's letter. >> and they were really bothering her when going through her time in dc. >> a couple little connections of history, julia did go to harpers ferry in 1866 and she writes about visiting this party were talking about including where they were hanged which is interesting, she did know frederick douglass and recounts once he came back into rochester he was talking about his experiences deciding whether to go or not go with john brown. i love how even though these are supposedly unknown people we are finding connections between them. >> that for tax. >> julia kept a diary for 50

years so that was the primary base of how i was able to enter her life. the originals, she kept two sets of diaries so there was a lot of going through them. she also had not so much personal letters but letters she sent to anti-slavery colleagues when she was in alexandria. so with those we can enter her life and see what she saw. >> tell us what she saw when she was coming from the north without much experience and essentially -- >> it is one thing to have great ideas when you are in rural new york and get to a war zone. alexandria was occupied from the beginning to the end, thousands of soldiers,

hospitals, logistics and that sort of thing, 7000 people came into the city, so they are advocating better housing, laboring for the government and families, they were due wages that were not coming. there was a scheme to take african american orphans and shove them into a small hospital, didn't know what else to do with them, protesting the union army, officially responsible for it the affairs, she had an important ally, some of you heard of a woman named harriet jacobs. and escaped that in rochester. two met in the 1840s, the two women together became partners

and allies in improving conditions. there was a black woman and white woman, and that did not happen that often. >> i don't know as much about harriet from the book but she did have more presence, no awareness what they are doing. >> she had written a narrative about her experience. and what i encourage people to read, the slave narrative by a woman. she had been writing articles for the liberator which was an abolitionist newspaper today, she had been there once.

>> how about race relations. was there a big change in julia's awareness, to deal with former slaves? >> up north it was easy to romanticize, what can i do to help, when she came down here, she was hearing individual stories, people's individual experiences, seeing what she could learn from them and help them and it became a more nuanced experience which is how it should be. >> another question, these are not stories of great triumph, what were the successes of the fight for freedom and julia could claim as they were in the middle of the thing? >> john anthony copeland as he

was being led to the gallows set i would rather die for freedom. of course john brown's read on harpers ferry is the catalyst that led to the civil war, the 13th amendment, and they could claim that and descendents, several siblings fought in the civil war, they were mobilized in 1863. and copeland in kansas. they were very light-skinned in 1880 census, designated as white. in the st. louis police department in 1876 was copeland. he was on the police memorial

in dc. >> how about julia? could she say she succeeded in any goal she set for herself during these years in dc? >> she thought up and downs, what she had accomplished a lot. >> what were some of the things she had to struggle against, with control of the situation. how did that go? the army firmed it out a little bit? >> the superintendent of contraband, in charge of free people affairs in alexandria. and people above him.

we know people today, a civilian woman going against the military powers that be, and in the book of the provost marshal office in alexandria, there was a gauntlet, in front of it. and going up to the provost marshal to make a request, here she comes again. she persisted several things she had done. there are wonderful letters in the archives, one person talks about he admires ms. wilber but she is a troublesome and interfering person and that is what you have to be to get something done? >> general questions bouncing out, what you participated in

-- >> these 5 men were treated as footnotes, at the time, governor wise of virginia received hundreds of letters, the contributions of life and execution. nobody championed the cause of two african-americans going to the gallows and i found it quite striking. there was only one request and that was from the black group in philadelphia and they were criticized by another black group because they were obsequious and referred to what these men did, in negative terms so even at the time, were

treated poorly so it is not surprising giving the society which we live, their role would be downplayed and would be seen as the black people with john brown, individuals and their own stories and their own lives. >> their lives were forfeit, whereas john brown took that action and it would mean he was heroic. >> even the anti-slavery organization in oberlin, everyone was focused on john brown, one of the white raters who was executed, john cook was well-connected, there were advocates from his life, other

than that, after that, john copeland's experience, with proper burial, governor wise would not permit an african-american to go to the state to retrieve them. he would allow a white person. >> james monroe made an effort and came to virginia and was in virginia, and the medical college of virginia and winchester and took the remains and refused to let them go. and monroe went into him, with john brown, whose body was given to his wife and harpers

ferry, proceeded north and almost to the extent that lincoln was followed by, he was considered quite a hero in his burial was ceremonial and that was not accorded to the -- >> what about the gentleman who escaped the gallows? >> anderson escaped from harpers ferry. albert haslett was a white raters determining there was nothing more he can do. they did leave harpers ferry, in pennsylvania, that point, having sore feet, and haslett went to his hometown of carlisle under an assumed name,

and in harpers ferry, in 1860. and made it to york. and african-american merchants, more than a merchant, he owned a railroad and in the underground railroad, putting anderson on the train to philadelphia, and the ride changed three times. he went to see his father, his father turned him away and then, in northeast ohio, crossed lake erie to canada west, and moved to washington dc, he contracted tuberculosis and died in 1872 at the age of 32.

really penniless and unknown and unrecognizable in his own city until his death and there was quite a funeral at the 15th st. presbyterian church where pallbearers, and wound up at the cemetery by fedex. >> the idea is they disappeared. julia and the fight for freedom, once the war was over, there is no historical moment anymore. how did julia carry on, did you live a fulfilling life about race relations in the united states or reconstruction or anything like that you >> she worked for the freedmen's bureau after the war

and started seeing money and compassion were drying up, we have done what we can, let's move on kind of thing, see in 1869, and the patent office for many years. her political self became more suffrage but lived her life the way she came down here. harriet jacobs who i mentioned first connected with or worked with in alexandria moved out of the area, moved back in in 1877, they remained friends for the rest of their lives. she was able to live the way she wanted to but had not

expected to in rochester farm. >> not much more in terms of helping former slaves. >> individuals and families, not in terms of a fixed political movement. >> she was in dc, not virginia after the war. >> she would come back to visit. what had been a slave pen still standing on duke street called freedom house museum is now a museum but it was used as a slave trading place before the war, as a prison during the war, she talked about going back after the war and a woman who had been enslaved was caretaker of it, and a relic. a former slave is taking a bolt of a slave trading place, and historic irony is that she

lived and realized. >> she felt pretty good, held onto that rally. >> it was a momentous sort of thing. >> i have been singing john brown's body lies a molder over the grave all week as we talked about this earlier in the week. there was a song about john brown but not about the fight for freedom and we are getting to the point we were talking about recovering that history and what is the purpose of recovering that history. what stories can we learn that apply today? >> it is so important to know our history and the impact our history continues to have on us today. i talked to a number of descendents. the park service in 2009 marked the sesquicentennial of the

raid. and it is a whitewash. and 350 photographs. -- >> a relatively large number. >> and it closed after the civil rights decision. and the park service had

changed, and they kindly gave a list of descendents and i reached a number with the history and aftermath. and i mentioned to be, his parents went to the high schools in dc. but they were liked in the north and passed and wasn't until he was 45 that found out he was african-american and descended from dangerfield new b and spent the past 25 years answering existential questions, who am i, what am i and shared his research with me and brings it all together. we are still living this history and until we not only

acknowledge but no our history we will never get past it and that is why it is so important to know the story. >> i think you are right. did you think of it as recovering history? >> i did. i also -- i titled the book "a civil life in an uncivil time" and i feel that defined what she was trying to do. how could she carve out what she was doing in appear go of great some old. something she continued to do the rest of her life. if i worked on the book, what would she be doing today, how would she leave a civil life in an uncivil time? i used it as a challenge for me personally. i hope people will think the same, how can somebody who is not famous or important, do not have wealth, and what things they can do to make a

difference. >> there are things we can do to make a difference. i thought it might be time to open up for questions if we have them. if you say i will try to repeat it. >> we need the microphone, sorry. >> the question for both of you coming in looking at these original documents, the manuscripts julia wrote, were you amazed how eloquent they wrote in the mid-19th century? >> i was amazed that the penmanship was pretty good. one of the things i loved was

there was humor, sarcasm, there was ups and downs. when i would be pouring through pages i would be transported into her world. that was really a treat. >> i think there was a presumption by some people, there is a presumption that during this pure go african-americans, whether enslaved or free, could not right. one person asked me, i was talking about dangerfield and nubian his correspondence with his wife harriet, how could he write his responses? that was kind of a racist view of things. i was not at all surprised. i thought the pros that i read, john anthony copeland's letters

were just beautiful, well-written. i read the things osborne anderson road that indicated an educated person. no, i wasn't surprised. i think it is important to see these people in full and not as uneducated black people. i was impressed as i would be by reading anybody who wrote well during that.. >> more than 280 characters. >> these were people who had a taste of freedom, they understood what lack of freedom meant. there was a powerful emotional moral quality to urgency to their writing. >> lewis leary when he was a young boy in north carolina had private tutors.

and also schools in fayetteville for persons of color and he attended those as well. these were not unsophisticated people with the exception perhaps of shield green who was not educated. ..