writings and of their graduate students and their graduate students' graduate students. and it's virtually lasted until now. there's a brand-new biography coming out on dwight eisenhower's president of the united states. man is a journalist who did enormous amount of research. he went to dartmouth to take a look at the papers. went to the library of congress. spent considerable time in abilene. he lives in los angeles and never came to the nixon library. that's -- that's the long and the short of it. it's an ingrained nature among a certain subset of very, very influential people that looked at nixon from the beginning of his vice presidency. and for that matter, dwight eisenhower was a twit in the

original books written about him in the late '50s and early '60s and sometimes even now. but for whatever reason, nobody really passionately looked at the papers of either dwight eisenhower and richard nixon. and to give another plug, if you're interested, one line and in the major libraries, there are the private papers of the presidency of dwight eisenhower as well as his early years. it's only 21 volumes. so if you wish to peruse it in a half an hour, it should be no problem. but vaney and galambose did this brilliantly. and those manuscripts that were put into book form are terribly, terribly underutilized. >> another question up here? >> yeah, my name is jeff kimball, and i have a comment and question about

psychohistory. i agree that a lot of the psychohistory i've read about nixon, the freudian -- based on freudian theory, is nonsense. but it seems to me that in doing biography, you have to do some kind of psychological analysis. and i have a question about one aspect of nixon's psychology. i've not looked at millions of papers, but maybe thousands of papers on his foreign policy. it is clear from memoirs, oral testimony and documentation that he believed in the principle of excessive threatening -- the principle of threatening excessive force. otherwise known as the mad man theory. and it's in his memoirs. it's all over. it was both intellectual and emotional. do you guys have any idea what the basis of it was aside from intellectual theory?

what's the psychological? >> do either of you guys want to do it? >> i actually wrote about psychohistory in a chapter, but today i didn't have time to -- i don't particularly care for the analysis. but i know there were -- as far as that, i believe it was just a threat. that may be kind of simple, but i believe he thought if he could scare them enough, that they might take him seriously. >> but why? >> jeff, i have done a bunch of work on this. and it is a basis in eisenhower. eisenhower also thought of excessive force and also preached vaguely, obliquely, yes, we're going to use a nuke. no, we're not going to use a nuke. yes, mao, you'd better behave in the taiwan straits or we're going to bomb you. it is part of our arsenal. we can use it.

ira ternus talks about this. it's a long involved thing. i think that nixon looked upon this coming out of the vice presidency. and part of his own presidency as part of his training, that it was an acceptable thing. here was the general of the army, the 800-pound gorilla, dwight eisenhower, who did, you know, the march all the way from north africa through france, et cetera. and based his position wherever he was on whatever force he needed to use. so there is -- i mean, there's just a myriad of ways we can go into this. if you want to talk about it later, you know, and go into it further. but that -- i really think his background comes from the training he has under eisenhower and the use of military power. >> apropos that although it had to do with journalists, not scholars. also in my interviews, he said that he expected to be put under

a microscope but when they used a proctoscope, it was going too far. i think books like abramson, i think some of the psycho -- they weren't even psychobiographies, they were psychological assessments of a patient they had never met. so i think that set him off. and then i think brody's book which, as i say, just finds the worst-case explanation for anything. and then accepts it. also, i think the poignant thing early on is that when he came in apropos vietnam, he came in with great hopes of ending the war very soon. and when they were with the secret negotiations and when they were dashed, he decided -- and then by then, he had the things going on with china and russia as a way of bringing pressure on what turned out to be very recalcitrant ally, but at the beginning, he -- his -- i

think his bona fides were great of thinking he could end the war in an honorable way to all sides than just end it. and when the enemy turned out to be recalcitrant for whatever reasons and/or figuring if they could wait him out, it would be a very close election, and if they could wait him out, they might get a better deal. but his decision then was that in order to still bring them to the table and to achieve a peace, he had to let them know that he wasn't afraid to escalate, which in his assessment was one of the problems with president johnson. that he had appeared to them, whether he did or not, this was the idea, that he appeared to be vacillating and that nixon was not going to do that. and so the other thing was that i think the balance of the mad man theory was that while kissinger -- one talon would be holding arrows and the other talon would be holding -- it was a balance -- it was a modified

limited mad man theory. >> and just to add one thing about the psychohistory stuff, most of us th a this know about arnold hutchnecker, nixon's psychotherapist, well, i have arnold hutchnecker's medical records. and he came closer to a proctoscope doing exams in '52, '53 and '54. the last time hutchnecker saw nixon as a parktd was a thank-you in june of 1956. he never treated him for psychological or psychiatric problems. it's all jive. it never happened. he never was a psychiatrist. >> other questions? over there. and then down here. this panel ends at 10:30. so these probably will be our last two questions. after that we'll have a 15-minute break. go ahead, sir. >> i actually have a question for frank gannon. i can't resist asking about the

role of formality in mr. nixon's behavior, particularly as president. i remember the telling question of john. have you ever seen mr. nixon without a suit? the answer was no. i spoke with a secret service agent who served with mr. nixon in san clemente. he said that even when they went to visit his mother, he was wearing a suit. what was it about wearing formal attire was so important to the president and his manner? >> i don't think it was important to him. i think it was just -- i mean, i think it was generational. it was lots of things. but it was just what people did. a lot of people did. i can remember as an undergraduate of late '50s and early '60s, everybody wore coat and tie, jacket and tie. so it wasn't that unusual.

he did have -- there was a very fine -- an artist, i guess, this infinite degrees within a single color and a palette, and there were infinite degrees of nixon's s sartorial formality and informality. again, i think it's generational. i don't think there's anything weird about it. he would have smoking jackets that were for relaxation. and he would have sports jackets. but that would be -- when he'd go out and golf, he'd wear slacks and a polo shirt. so that was -- i mean, it got -- the image got sort of nailed down by some unfortunate things. the walk on the beach that was meant to be a sensitive walk on the beach in wing tips. so it can be overdone. but on the weekends. because we did work -- i can remember one of my favorite phone calls was frank.

i know tomorrow is christmas. but if you're not doing anything, i'll be in the office and we could catch up on a lot of work. so we worked -- well, we had a lot of work to do on that book. but ed come in on the weekends in a jacket and a polo shirt. so it was -- he was a formal person. but i think those were more -- he came out of more formal times. he also had a sense of the mystique of leadership. i think it's interesting in the library here, the lincoln sitting room is recreated. and one of where he -- to which he would retire at nights and think and write and sometimes just turn the lights out and look at the fireplace and listen to music. and the book that's open on the table in this replica of the lincoln sitting room was his cope with his yellow highlights, and it was the one of many

copies of degaulle's "edge of the word," 1930 something, '32, collection of essays. and that has to do with the mystique of, among other things, with the mystique of leadership and that the leader was essentially -- there had to be a kind of a distance. and i think that nixon had a sense of this, that the leader wasn't -- wasn't meant -- it wasn't good for the leader to be one of the people. the people wanted some kind of distance in their leader. and i think that factored in, but again, not in a weird psycho way. >> this gentleman's been waiting. >> thank you. >> your question. >> i'm blake thomas, u.s. history teacher from high school in oxnard, california. and i find using the psychology angle as accurate as we can be helps three-dimensionalize historical figures for our younger students. and i was just wondering, thinking about some early formative things that happened to both eisenhower and nixon, eisenhower and mamie, i think,

both lost a child very early, scarlet fever. they never really got over that sting. that's why he never pushed all the way to berlin to save parents the same heartache he experienced. and nixon, you read in one of the displays here about how he listened to his mother, hanna, console his brother at 7 just hours before he finally passed. and you would think that those formative things might have the effect of, you know, i'm not saying nationalize health care so these things don't happen, but it was them's the breaks? or how did they take these things in and keep them from imbuing their world view as something where wow, this is the place where society should step in to save us all. instead, it's boot straps world and that's just the way it is. i'm not sure which person would reflect on that, but thank you for answering my question. >> anybody? >> you know, both you and professor kimball are absolutely right in the sense that looking

at these people from a psychological value is good serious stuff. i mean, i really think it should be done. the problem is is so much of the basis of how people do this is not the quantity but how they want the story to come out. the fly leaf of brody's book says, i am going to prove to you how nixon lied from the time he was in the womb until the book came out. i mean, that's nutty stuff. it says more about off and on brody who, by the way, the book was published posthumously. so i don't know how much of it she wrote. the nature of what you say and izzy and, you know, harold and the other brother and the nature of how these people were affected by death certainly is fair game for any good scholar,

journalist, anybody you look at because sured effects and it's fair game to talk about this stuff. the only thing is to do it within a context of stuff you know about. dr. arena's got 336 oral histories. how many people other than he and joe have read all of them? you know, how many people have read all of harry jeffrey's oral histories? and by the way, the bella cornitzer papers are posted in drew university in madison, new jersey. and they're available for research. and there are the cassettes. five cassettes with hamm and nixon. there's a cassette in 1960 with richard nixon. this is the stuff that historians just love to see. but for whatever reason, many of my colleagues don't do the work.

and they've got to do the work. if they're going to be credible, if they're going to be acceptable, then the entire panorama has got to be what's examined. and then let the chips fall as they may. >> i know others of you have questions. this session is ending. i invite you to bring those questions to the panelists who will be circulating. we're going to take a 15-minute break, and we will resume in this room with a session on politics. please thank the panelists. good job. thank you. thank you so much. good job. you get a star. >> it was too much pressure. >> you get a star. >> it was too much pressure. >> you were both fabulous. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> you did well. >> yeah. >> a pleasure to meet you. >> so please, please. please, please. all weekend long, american history tv joins our time warner

cable partners in beaumont, texas, to showcase its history in literary culture. beaumont, founded in 1835, is 80 miles east of houston and 30 miles inland from the gulf of mexico. you're watching american history tv on c-span3. just plain democrat, not a conservative democrat, not a dixiecrat, just plain democrat. actually, most democrats in texas are fairly conservative. they want to have compassion. they want to help people, but they want to be reasonable about it. and i think that most of them agree with me that we ought to, when you get right down to it, that you ought to be interested in helping people, but you ought to be interested in helping everybody. >> jack brooks grew up in beaumont, attended lamar university, university of texas and was elected congressman in

1952. and he served the people of beaumont and southeast texas for 42 years. and he was a very powerful democrat. he had strong relations with the labor unions and he did many economic development projects for beaumont and port arthur, the southeast texas region. he was very close to speaker sam raburn and also to majority leader of the senate, lyndon b. johnson who, of course, later was vice president and then president of the united states. in working with lyndon johnson, jack brooks voted for some very important controversial new laws, especially the civil rights act of 1964. before this law in 1964, there was widespread discrimination and segregation against black

people in the united states, especially in the southern united states. black people were barred from going in restaurants and cafes and motels and movie theaters. they could work in those places. but they were not welcome there as customers or clients. so there was widespread discrimination. and many people thought that should be changed. and during the year of 1963, president kennedy proposed a new civil rights law. and he was doing this in part based on rising tensions in the south, especially in birmingham, alabama. and president kennedy, in his administration, introduced a sweeping civil rights bill, but it was sort of stalled out, and it wasn't being passed. there was opposition from the south and other people. and then they made the trip to

dallas. president kennedy and president johnson made the trip to dallas in november of '63 while this bill was pending in congress. and a number of people went with them including congressman brooks. and congressman brooks and lyndon johnson were in the motorcade in downtown dallas on november the 22nd when president kennedy was assassinated. president johnson went back to the airplane, air force one. he took the oath of office. the presidency with jack brooks and other people looking on. in that year of '64 after the assassination, after kennedy -- i mean after johnson became president, the civil rights bill was brought forward. and with president johnson's leadership and the leadership of

others including jack brooks, they brought that bill to fruition, and it was passed and became law -- i believe it was signed july the 2nd, 1964. and that changed everything in the south and the united states with respect to segregation. that broke the back of segregation in the south. it was a huge step for johnson and brooks and other americans. brooks was one of 11 southern congressmen who voted for it. all the other southerners voted against it, including many texans. so brooks was a major player in this huge change. he went with johnson the next year in the voting acts right of '65 and in the housing act of 1968. so jack brooks who's featured here on this statue on the lamar campus, was a major player in

change in the united states. and he's honored here on the lamar campus for many things that he did for our region and for this lamar university campus. >> in may of 2011, historian richard norton smith led a bus tour from asheville, north carolina, to austin, texas. the group stopped at several presidential and historic site as long the route. one of the stops was the andrew johnson homestead in greenville, tennessee, a site owned and operated by the national parks service. johnson served as vice president under president lincoln and succeeded him when lincoln was assassinated. here's park guide daniel luther portraying president johnson and telling the story of how andrew johnson met abraham lincoln. >> in 1847, i went into the 30th congress for my third term, representing the people of the 1st district. and while i was there, i met an extremely tall, raw-boned young man representing the prairie

state of illinois. and his name was abraham lincoln. and we fell into conversation. and i introduced myself and told him that i was from northeast tennessee. and he replied that he had relatives in northeast tennessee. and perhaps i knew some of them. he identified his great uncle isaac as having owned a farm and which his father had worked as something of a hired hand in the 1790s. and he also identified another great uncle, a gentleman by the name of mordecai who lived in the town of greenville. to which i replied greenville is my hometown. and your great uncle mordecai, in fact, performed the wedding ceremony for me and my wife, eli eliza, in 1827 as well as mordecai and i served on the town council together in 1829, and i reassured lincoln he was in good hands in terms of politics that his great uncle

gained a great many more votes than i had. but like many young men who came into congress at the time, we went in there with goals. and each of us had a cherished goal that we wanted to achieve in that congress. mine was the introduction of the homestead bill. for mr. lincoln, it was the introduction of legislation which would have provided for compensated emancipation of slaves in the district of columbia. and like other young men who go into congress, we found out it is not so easy to get your cherished goals accomplished. and so we left that session of congress without those bills passed. i would serve two more terms. mr. lincoln, that would be his only term in the house of representatives. at the beginning of the fourth term, i bought the house that you have just seen. but it is irony, those of us who lived through our late unhappy struggle often felt that we were caught up in the hands of fate. and as fate would have it, each of us, abrraham lincoln and

myself, were 15 years into the future, able to help the other achieve that earlier cherished goal. for my part, abram lincoln signed the homestead bill into law in 1862. in 1864, i helped mr. lincoln gain at least one state into the column of abolition, emancipation. and that is the state of tennessee that you're visiting today. you heard some of these words earlier. so i'm going to give you just a short excerpt. in october of 1864, word got out that i as military governor was about to issue a proclamation of emancipation for the slaves in tennessee. and this created a large gathering at the state capitol. and i stepped out to address them. and used some of the following words. colored people of nashville. you have all heard of the president's proclamation by which he proclaims that a large portion of the slaves in the

state still in rebellion have been declared henceforth and forever free. for reasons which seemed wise to the president. this proclamation did not apply to you or to your native state. consequently, many of you were left in bondage. the fetters still galled your limbs. gradually this inequity has been passing away. but the time has come for the last vestiges of it to be removed. therefore, i, without reference to the president or any other person, have a proclamation to make and standing here on the steps of the capitol with the past history of the state to witness, its present condition to guide, its future to encourage me. i, andrew johnson, do hereby proclaim freedom, full, broad and unconditional to every man in tennessee.

those were words. some four months later we backed them up with action. the convention i called to recreate a loyal state government to the union also enacted an amendment to the tennessee state constitution ending forever slavery in this state which became part of our constitution with a popular vote of the people on february 22nd, 1865. shortly after that, i went back to washington to take the seat as vice president. the second highest office in the gift of a free people. five weeks later, the war was over. and one of its final casualties, our murdered president. and with his death, the burden he had borne for four years fell upon my shoulders. sorrowful times. discouraging times. and yet as i spoke to the gathering of the cabinet that came to my rooms at the kirkwood hotel the morning of april 15th,

i told them that i had hope. i had hope that our government, having emerged from its present trials would settle on policies more con sonant withcipl of fre than it had had heretofor. and i believed this na w would forward. and i had good strong reason for my hope. i had faith in the union. i had fai the constitution. and above all else, i had faith in the people. thank you for your kind attention. >> a question. >> sir. >> there's a bit of a controversy along us 150 years later over you and the part you play in the decision in the trial of the lincoln

conspirators. >> yes, sir. >> and in particular, the decision and unprecedented decision on the part of the federal government to execute a woman, mary sirah. can you tell us how that came about? >> yes, sir. i will tell you -- and i'm aware of the controversy, and i'm aware there are a number of different sides to it -- that in my view, she was guilty. i believe she was the person who kept the nest that hatched the egg. however, the controversy arises over this, having been convicted by military tribunal and having been sentenced to death by that same tribunal, five of the nine judges on the tribunal recommended clemency for her. in other words, that her death sentence be commuted to life in prison. i was unaware of that commutation recommendation. i was freshly into my office. i was allowing myself to be guided by the cabinet and the other officers who had been

present. and when judge advocate joseph holt brought me the papers including the death warrants, i signed them. some two years later ux 1867, this is interesting, this is when the impeachment crisis was emerging, the newspapers began printing the awareness that a recommendation of clemency had been made. and that i had ignored it. and i sent to the war department requesting to see those documents. and when i did see them, it appeared to me that the clemency recommendation which was right there had been torn out and reattached. and i thought only two men could have done such a thing. one of them, joseph holt, judge advocate general who had been responsible for the trial, but the other was his superior, edwin stanton. so perhaps i will leave it this way. the next day after i saw those documents from the war department, i sent a short note to secretary