off, shook hands and talked in a warm fashion. so they had come to terms with that on soto some extent. anyone else? we're just about right on time. yes, sir. there's one more. >> would you comment on what jackson thought about justin davis during 186 # and possib2 vice versa? >> what jack so th thason thoug jefferson davis. jackson had a low opinion of caves. davis. jackson's world view was that thing wills were supposed to run according to the manual and davis not only had accepted way out of channels complaints about jackson during the romney campaign, it not only condition

go through jackson, which is the way the book is supposed to be, but he might have for given that, they didn't go through his superior, they went right straight to the secretary of war. the secular leader of the war effort. and jackson also is said to have been -- this is not quite so well documented disgusted with davis' unwillingness to pursue after first manassas. but there is an adequately documented episode in the after math of the seven days when jefferson davis rode down past the battlefields on i think the morning of july 2 and came into the room where lee was for a conference with the leading commanders, jackson was present. he immediately stood up, stiffly at attention and promptly left the room. and there were evidence that's didn't want to be around davis. he never said in writing what he thought about davis. he would never say such a thing.

that would be contrary to that by the book world view that he embraced to keep his life on line. we have precisely used up our time. thank you for your attention. [ applause ] >> okay, gang. as bob gets miked up to do q&a with the krflt spc-span audienc take a break for 15 minutes. we'll be back in here at exactly ten minutes of the hour and we will hear david blight next. and i just want to give you a highlight. david and bob will disagree on who the person of the year is for 1862, but i think that their greatest disagreement is bob is a hopeless san francisco giants fan and david equally with the detroit tigers. so that's their major

disagreement. again -- so let's take a break. there are books available and coffee and doughnuts outside. thank you.

you're watching american history tv where we are bringing you all day coverage from the library of virginia in richmond. the second year they've done this event with us in looking at the person of the year, and this year it's 1862. the civil war celebrating the 150th anniversary, 1862 is the year they're focusing on this year. and today five historians will present their case for person of the year. we heard from robert krick who was a historian at national military park and his nomination was thomas stonewall jackson. we'll talk to robert krick momentarily. and also take your phone calls, as well. here are the phone lines if you are living in the eastern and central time zone, the number is 202-585-3885. for mountain, 202-585-3886.

make sure you do mute your television when you call in so you won't feedback. you can also participate online even if you don't want to call in at twitter.com/c-span. our handle is c-span history. and we will focus specifically on the hash tag poty 1862. if you put that in your tweet, we'll try to read some of those. we already have postings on facebook. facebook.com/c-span. and you can join in with your nomination for person of the year 1862. writing in for abraham lincoln, justin gates says it should be lincoln. with the emancipation proclamation. also paul martin says the abolitionist william lloyd garrison. so we'll take your phone calls, as well. robert krick joins us from the rye bra library of virginia. your nomination was thomas

stonewall jackson. outside of 9 south the south, h mon known was jackson? >> he was barely known in the south and probably pot at all in the north. the impact seems to be a consequence of the explosion as though on a catapult to fame. the impact went from nothing to a great deal. and that is part of my case in making him the man of the year for 1862. he gave the south the opportunity to look for some success and find a good bit of it later this 1862. they had had none, not a hint of success until jackson. a little bit in march, but mostly then may and june of 1862 in virginia shenandoah valley. won victories that were of some

consequence. they had some substance, but they were not as important as actual fact as they were in the minds on both sides about the new nation having a life, having some potential, having some capacity to succeed. >> toward the end of your comments, make you the poiyou yu thought jackson would have been a failure as the head of an army and certainly his legacy after his death certainly was a motivation for southern soldiers. >> yes, his personality, his style, his wrorld view was so rigid that he was not going to lead a large number of powerful men smoothly in an integrated effort. as part of a larger organization, his unquestioned military ability and his determination and his zeal were priceless attributes. i do not think, hard to imagine that those would have rans lated on to a larger stage. is really is.

>> you're going to be joined by four other historians today presenting their case for person of the year 1862. who do you think some of the other contestants will be? >> i'm quite sure someone will talk about general lee p. emory thomas has given a good-bye owigood biography of lee, so i'm guessing that's where he'll go. but i have no inside information. there certainly will be some political figures. someone suggested abraham lincoln is should get the attention. that would make a good bit more sense were it not in this context that last year he was the man of the year in 1861 in this particular venue. so almost surely he will not even be mentioned last year. he was last year's man. he had his inning. >> with we have a couple of phone calls waiting. spotsylvania, is this vince? go ahead with your comments. >> i heard a serier rrieear the

contribute beated to you and that is that the friendly fire that wounded jackson may not have been the localized event we think of it as today. and that it was something more like a sympathetic reaction area rolling tide that started actually maybe miles away and as it moved along the line of fire, it ended up wounding him and killing some of his staff and that same reactionary sympathetic fire also wounded a.p. hill. could you comment on that? >> well, i have written an extensive chapter with lots of footnotes, so you can read the sources for yourself and decide. it's called the volley that doomed the confederacy and i think it's quite well documented this ripple of fire that moved up the line and eventually came to where jackson was wasn't miles away, it was about three quarters of a mile away to the south. on their far right, they ran

into a gaggle of -- captured a federal general in the process and seems to have spread up the line. i think that's pretty surely what happened, but you can decide for yourself with all the evidence in front of you if you look at that chapter. i would add that hill was in fact not wounded. jackson was about 100 yards away from the smooth bore muskets which an amazing number of confederates were still carrying with the war half over in may of 1863. he was about at the extreme range of those muskets and hill was right next to him but they missed hill and hit jackjackson. >> peter in fredericksburg, welcome. go ahead. >> possible, >> as usual, i always enjoy your talks. i was wondering if you would care on comment on jackson's actions in the second manassas campaign and also the fredericksburg campaign which concluded in 1862 and whether

you feel that it enhanced his qualifications for man of the year or was he just a really superior super subordinate executing lee's work. >> all three of those jackson did very well. in fredericksburg was pretty much a set piece, the most rigidly set piece battle of the war in the east. sharpsburg involved a lot of movement, but not nearly as much as chancellorsville. second manassas was a masterpiece, jackson's execution of the joint plan that he and lee had crafted and certainly contributes mightily to the success of the confederacy. there's a very interesting quote from lee that pertains to all of this, and that is in the fall of 1862 when the confederate

congress finally had authorized the creation of the lieutenant general's rank, northerners never did it get that far, they created corps legally and lieutenant generals to command those corps. in acknowledgement of jackson's failure, although the public didn't recognize it, everyone in the army did during the seven days, jefferson davis inquired of lee are you sure that jackson deserves this? now, davis' letter does not survive but it can be enter poe lated from his response which was every since the seven day, jackson has been everything i expected him to be or want him to be. so that was a nice rubric for the rest of 1862 for jackson. >> robert krick is joining us, one of forgave historians

looking at the person of the year 1862. we'll take a couple more calls. we also have a comment on facebook, a comment about the role of thomas stonewall jackson. matthew says richmond would paul in the spring of 1862 without him. what do you think of that? >> the parallel universe is wide open for all of us to speculate, but i'm with him. it is hard to imagine without jackson coming down from the valley on to the exposed federal wing, even though that did not work nearly as well as it was hoped it would and takes ougas to have done, it's hard to imagine lee succeeding. mcclellan just had too many people. so i'm not opposed to that notion at all. >> let's go to joe in new york. welcome to the conversation. >> hello, mr. krick. i have a question regarding j jackson's valley campaign.

at cross keys, yewell fought that battle without the knowledge of jackson. so can one assume that the two had a good relation or it just happened that that's the way the battle was fought? >> well, the two pby this time did not have a really good relation. you heard my quotes three weeks earlier. yewell was calling him all sorts of names. he was writing home that jackson was insane. he was coming around by now. this is about the point as which he had admitted to one of his fellow officers that he had been wrong about jackson. but they were hardly on really close terms. jackson did come to cross keys once during the day did not get to the had almost no impact on it. more than anything else, it's tr trimbull's battle at a tactical level.

it's pot a masterpiece. it's a holding action against fremont. fremont was an incredibly successful explore erran er and a guy, but it was not an enormous chore either by most standards. >> we have another new york caller on the line, bernie is in brooklyn. go ahead. >> good morning. when davis appointed lee as commander of the army of virginia, was jackson ever considered and if he was, what was the rationale? that he couldn't get along wit

his under links? >> lee was appointed just after the serious wounding of joe johnston during the battle of 7 pines. lee took command two days later. and there was no question that lee was the man for the job. he was here in richmond. he had the rank. jackson would not have been considered -- he wasn't even on the long, long, long slate to consider that. his rank was not high enough. his experience was not high enough. lee was the obvious choice and jackson was not even a candidate. after he had reached lieutenant general's rank late in 1862 is when there might have been the question to which i addressed myself about commanding one of the larger armies while lee took another one. after jackson had the rank mene to that. but people were not jumped two ranks under any circumstances that i can think of. >> richard is in concord,

massachusetts. thanks for joining us here on american history tv. >> thank pow hayou for having m. i'm glad someone has picked stonewall. but my question is as historians, we usually don't speculate in what could have happened, but i would like your opinion as to what you think might have happened had general jackson lived past may of 1863. >> i alluded during the formal presentation to the fact hat single question i've been most asked is kind of like that, only more specific. it's impossible to foretell what would have happened. that is patently obvious. but the question really what if jackson had been at gettysburg, people are wanting to hoist him into the foot of the hill on the end of july 1 with things having unfolded as they had and that's not a legitimate question, although it's kind of fun to

think about. this is like of ancient greeks. they would hoist in a pig to resolve all of the issues at the end of the play. dropping jackson in there just doesn't work historically because had jackson lived, instead of three confederate corps under lee going north, there would only have been the two. without reorganization. presumably longstreet and jackson. and every hour of the day as those folks moved through the country roads in western maryland and south central pennsylvania, the options to turn this way or that for the two corps instead of the lthree were limitless. jackson might have fought the famous battle of harrisburg or cleveland, ohio or who knows where. so dropping him into gettysburg isn't legitimate. but i have no doubt that would he have gone up the hill and that would have been the end of the battle. but that's a good question. >> we have a couple more quick

que cal calls before presume resumes. carolyn, go ahead. >> good morning, sir. i just wanted to tell you how fascinating this is. i'm in an or bon arbor, michiga the program is so very interesting for those of us who aren't in your region. we lived in richmond couple years and went to all the battlefields and learned about it and there are still re-enactments up here and people who are very interested in michigan and the civil war, in studying it. so thank you for airing this nationally and for bringing such fascinating speakers. >> well, i should admit that i lived in michigan for a few years. i was very, very young. my theory is it did me no harm in the long term because i was so young and moved on on california. but i'm glad to hear about the interest out there. and i hope you will parlay that into support for preserving the battlefields. get on the internet and go look for civil war.

civil war.org is the biggest of the groups. doing a spectacular job. it needs support from everyone. >> thank you, robert krick. the first of five historians here at the library of virginia in richmond talking about the person of the year 1862. mr. krick, thanks for taking phone calls from our viewers. >> yes, sir. >> in a couple of minutes, the program will resume with a different perspective. david blight, from the center for the study of slavery and abolition. we will hear his nomination. we will be back with phone calls in 45 minutes. you can continue the conversation online if you can go to twitter.com/c-span. you can use the #poty1862. we will look at some of those

tweets after the next historian speaks. also at facebook.com/c-span. we will read those questions as well. you are watching live coverage from the library of virginia in richmond. it is an event co-hosted by the museum. robert krick, the first of five historians speaking. david blight is next. we will hear from james mcphearson here on american history tv on c-span 3. >> ladies and gentlemen, if you

could return to your seats, we'll get restarted in just a moment. okay. let's get restarted if we could. our next speaker, i mentioned earlier, he is a detroit tigers fan. i think the reason that he particularly likes richmond is we sent justin verlander to the tigers. but david blight is a familiar face here in richmond. coming down from connecticut quite frequently to speak with us in the virginia historical society and the american civil war center. david has done quite a bit to

help our understanding here and nationally about the civil war. david is the class of 1954 professor at yale university. excuse me. professor of american history at yale university. he is also the director of the center for the study of slavery resistance and abolition. best known to civil war audiences as the author of the 2001 book "race and reunion, the civil war and american history." he has published for the civil war perceptive look at the civil war centennial entitled "american oracle." it is a pleasure to welcome back to the museum of the confederacy and to you today, david blight. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, waite.

good morning. >> good morning. s>> i have one rule i always tr to enforce whenever i'm speaking in the south. i can't quite do it every time. it is to have at least emory thomas on my flank. i never go anywhere without emory. just kidding. what a thrill it was to be in charleston with emory on one side and bud robertson on the other. i got away with it [ laughter ] with jim mcphearson on my other side today, i'm likely to get out alive. it is always a thrill to do anything with the museum of the confederacy. i owe the book "race and reunion" in great part to the fantastic collection of the museum of the confederacy.

there is no better place to study the memorial period of the confederacy than in those collections. and in those years i was doing that research, john and ruth cox used to let me in early. it doesn't get any better than that. i was seldom whipped by my old master and suffered little from anything else than hunger and cold. he would be whipped mercilessyly. i suffered from cold and hot summers and cold winters. i was kept almost naked. no shoes, no stockings, no jacket, no trousers, nothing on, but of course, towel linen shirt reaching to my knees. i had no bed. i must have perished with cold.

but that the coldest nights i used to steal a bag which was used for carrying corn to the mill. i would crawl into this bag and there sleep on the cold, damp clay floor with my head in and the feet out. my feet have been so cracked with the frost that the pen with which i am writing might be laid into the gashes. that man's pen and the voice from which it came changed the world. he changed the world with metaphors like a former slave's pen laid in the gashes of his feet.

the person whose story i tell today had not yet fired a shot in anger in this war by 1862. so far as i know, i never actually shouldered a firearm anytime in his life. he did not attend west point. nor the u.s. naval academy. he has never held any elected office to this point in time and never would. sorry. that's post-1862. nor does he have any formal education in american schools or colleges of higher learning. he has no family pedigree our society would consider even worth noting. his very existence as an adult free man at age 44 in this dark and distracted year of 1862

required of him physical resistance, great emotional resilience, intellectual cunning and extraordinary bravery and blatant law breaking. well before the secession crisis, the emassing of the armies and the battles of bull run in shiloh and the battles of richmond and the bloody day of antietam in 1862, my subject was and is a surviving veteran of an older, longer war. that state of war, the country called slavery and that the

world called slavery. human kind's ancient desire and capacity to exploit and make property of its fellow human beings. if we could have the pictures there. i brought a photo. this guy is so handsome, it enhances my chances to finish at least fifth -- or fourth. i don't know if lee will show up today. lee was a gorgeous guy, too. check him out. my subject, of course, is frederick douglas. he was born frederick agustus washington bailey born on maryland's eastern shore in february, 1818. a little more on that background in