>> while working at the rand corporation in 19 67, daniel ellsberg became a consultant to the white house and defense department on matters concerning the vietnam war. giving him access to classified and top-secret documents print he photocopied a 7000 page study that later became known as "the pentagon papers." in 1971, he gave the documents to the new york times. part two of a two-part interview with daniel ellsberg. he talks about handing over the pentagon papers to the new york times, the fall out of the leak and his arrest and trial which

spanned from june 1971-may, 1973. the richard nixon presidential library conducted this interview as part of a project to document the 37th president's administration. this portion is about 50 minutes. >> on labor day weekend after their unsuccessful operation in the break and go back to washington via new york. they stay at the pair -- i believe -- no, what was the hotel that kennedy was famous for going into? i associated with kennedy all the time. what's the one -- the plaza. the one that the little girl -- remember? >> metal line.

-- madeiline. >> they stayed at this hotel. a very fine hotel for them to stay in. that weekend, i think on a sunday, the office of senator goodale is broken into. my memory is not perfect on all the names but i believe the name of goodell's assistant was andrew pair -- pierre and he told me there is no question there was a burglary that weekend in his office. my former wife -- this gets complicated -- had told the fbi in 1969 that i had given -- let me get that right -- she had told her stepmother and her stepmother told the fbi back

in 1969 that i have given the pentagon papers to albright and the dell -- goodell. goodell had almost been written out of the republican party after he lost office by his antiwar sentiment but he was also known to be very connected with me. from 19 since he on, i had been consulting with goodell but had not given him the pentagon papers but they believed i had. they exaggerated the degree of my intimacy with goodell. the fbi thought i gave the papers to him so his office is broken into on that weekend. i went and visited the office. it is about two blocks from the plaza where they were staying. i think hunt and liddy on the way home made a little operation

into that office. presumably with others. they probably had some help on that. it did not matter in the end. >> did you ever ask about that? >> i think i did. he did not remember or did not know. as to what he did or did not know, that's another story. it did not believe he knew everything they had been up to. if we were unraveling all of this stuff, it would be interesting. oh ,yes, why would they be interested in my wife's analyst and so forth? the plumbers, the cubans who worked for hunt and liddy, were interviewed at great length right taylor branch and george

trial for a book they were doing on the plumbers operation, the bay of pigs. their book never came out because their publisher went bankrupt. branch and crile had a fight over how they would split the royalties or something if they found another publisher and it never came out. i was very anxious to get the files from branch -- that's a whole other story -- i did not get it. however, branch told me at the time a good deal about what they were after. , what he learned from the cubans. he said to me that the cubans -- i think they had talked to martinez and barker and some of the others and i cannot identify

who told what -- but they had learned from the cubans that their objective was to find -- there were four objectives in this effort to neutralize me altogether. to get information basically that i did not want known blackmail type information. their hopes were dashed the highest hope was that i would commit suicide. rather than have this material which is what the fbi and co-intel program due at martin luther king. they sent him a tape of his sexual escapades in a hotel room with a note saying you will know what to do. you have only one course of action. it was just before you got the nobel prize. many others have discussed -- i can give you reference on this

-- their highest hope was he would commit suicide if he did that. otherwise, they would put it out and discredit him hopefully. their hope was that i would commit suicide. second, that i would leave the country and go to cuba. like various other people. eldridge cleaver and so forth. timothy leary, algeria. obviously again, putting me out of action, both of those keep it quite effectively. third, one of the things was i would not go on the stand. interestingly, they had been told a story which is little known. some of the cubans hardly speak english. they had heard it from hunt and

liddy. they had the and the in mind of the hiss case where his stepson was kept off the stand that he was the only person who could testify to the critical question of how often he had seen chambers which was crucial. it was how intimate was the relationship. the fbi had threatened informally huisiss that they would be let it known cross examination of his son that he was homosexual and hiss had not permitted him to be on the side -- on the stand. some is willing to go on the stand anyway. his father said it would ruin your life and he did not let it happen so he did not get that corroborating testimony that he had not seen chambers very much. this was a story that was in the

minds of these cuban-americans a very esoteric story that other people have testified to which may or may not be true. that was the kind of information they wanted so ranch said the cubans were as interested in the information that would be on your children or your wife as on you. anything that i would not want told that would come at the very least, keep me off the stand which means i would be convicted. the other point was, keep me from telling. krogue has told me his number one priority as the man in charge of " neutralizing me" was

what other information i had and what i put it out and who might i be getting it from. that's the critical conspiracy. who might still be in the administration who was giving me or other people information about him, not about the pentagon papers. the concern of the plumbers under krogue and hunt was what else could i put out beyond the pentagon papers that would tell of nixon's vietnam policy. that's what i mean when i say the crimes of going into all of these different, a lot of different little burglaries in my doctor's office, trying to shut me up and break my mouth barker said to lloyd sherer, " my order was to break both of my legs." that would keep me in the hospital but not off the stand. someone else wanted to take care

of my job. jaw. the purpose of these crimes had i given something to mcgovern he would not have told that i would have given it to him. he said i put at the pentagon papers. for other reasons. because he was running for president and one of that publicity. -- and wanted that publicity. it was matthias who had the incentive to confess to the administration immediately that he had documents from the nsc. fortunately, from my point of view, he did not tell them what it was and he hardly knew what it was. nsc documents which suggested immediately a mole from the nsc and the possibility that i have the likelihood that i had documents on mining or hai phong

and nuclear weapons and i had to be stopped. this led to crimes which could have been kept secret. if the criminals themselves -- the cia office -- they did not think of themselves as criminals but as warriors, covert warriors. , patriots. had they not been caught. again, if they had talked earlier, they would have come out. if fielding had told me against the advice of his lawyer that his office had been broken into by the white house, we would have put that out and the plumbers would not have been hired to work for creek. even though the police would not have known who did it, they would know. i don't think they would've have used those people again that the police were looking for to go into the offices of the

democratic national committee. the people who did go in would not have had these earlier crimes to reveal. they would not have had to be kept secret by the smoking gun by pretending it was a cia operation. that was the smoking gun conversation. hunt would not have been paid off $100,000 or so. none of this guaranteed that nixon would leave office. a lot of other things have to follow, too. the tapes had to be revealed. the supreme court had to decide that the tape said to be given over. the saturday night massacre, a lot of things have to happen. nixon was not terribly reckless to believe he could commit crimes like this and keep them quiet. presidents did this kind of thing all the time and nearly

all of them kept quiet. moreover, once they come out george w. bush has committed crimes like this right and left and a lot of them have come out and he is still there. i don't say he would get reelected this year if he was running but he will live out his office. he did not get impeached. none of his officials have gone to prison. even libby will eventually be pardoned. he was not unusually reckless in doing this. he had bad luck to but he was vulnerable, there is a possibility and he took that risk to preserve of vietnam policy that he thought would work foolishly but not impossibly. he was wrong. actually, it did work up to a point. in fact, he did get reelected in

1972 despite the war still going on. i believe it was entirely -- there is a lot of evidence on this -- his intention to renew the bombing of north vietnam as some as american troops were out in march, april, 1973. according to time magazine in 1975, he had given the order to renew the bombing in april but dean on april 13, told the prosecutor's -- maybe the 15th --dean told the prosecutor's who promptly told maxim. -- told nixon. nixon keeps a quiet for another 10 days or more but it does come out and now he is in deep trouble. byrne has to put it up because he knows now that dean is talking, it's going to come out.

he cannot sit on it any longer. he has to put it out. nixon lost all of that. >> you believe this is the most information that until the prosecutors? >> it was crucial that dean told the prosecutors. it was crucial. he told them lots of stuff up until them but it did not involve the president. he deliberately kept from defiling the president. for various reasons. maybe loyalty but also dean very well that a fight with the president is a dangerous process. by that time, he knew he was dealing with people who were assassins. hunt had organized and managed efforts to assassinate castro. while the other operations the plumbers were involved in was a plot to assassinate toreos? do you know about that? >> no. >> it's good for the next library. there were all involved in a

plot -- and they had done actions to further the plot -- to assassinate torreos to get the panel mocon now -- the panama canal to have another canal go through, to widen the canal or something like that. there was some idea of a sealevel canal. toprreos was in the way of that so they were going to assassinate him and he later died in a plane crash. that seems to be white hunt and dean were involved in the break-in in las vegas. it had something to do with howard hughes and the torroes affair but there are records on this. a guy named jonathan marshall was on this. i can put you want to that.

in 1968, i gave neil a series of top-secret leaks including west moreland's year-end report, eyes only for the president top-secret. this was right after the tet offensive but i was doing this. his report which was only a month or so earlier, it ended in january, told the president that we have driven the vietcong out of south vietnam to the borders where we are pursuing them. this was 10 days or so before the vietcong hit simultaneously every province capital in vietnam and saigon in a 2-day

period so it made west moreland look quite bad. the day that was leaked in "the new york times," west moreland was told that afternoon that he would be replaced by creighton abrams. i was i just to see him replaced because i knew he was likely to use nuclear weapons over kaison which they were afraid would be another dien nien phu. i foresaw the president giving west moreland a large part of what he just asked for secretly, 200-6000 troops. -- 200-6000 troops. -- 206,000 troops. i wanted the president johnson

to feel that his administration at high levels had suddenly become transparent, a goldfish bowl, that he would not be able to give west moreland secretly 100,000 troops or 200,000 troops and lie about what he was giving as he had always done in the past. he had always given westmoreland until 1957, more troops, promise of more troops than he revealed to the public. to keep them from doing that in this case which i thought would lead to the invasion of north vietnam which is what west moreland wanted and thus to chinese involvement and eventually the use of nuclear weapons, to keep them from doing that, too thinking he could do it secretly, i wanted him to know that if he made that decision it would leak out. the way i thought of convincing

them of that was to make it a major top-secret leak every day for a number of days. i gave neil sheehan that and the new order of battle which doubled the estimate of viet cong which would not have been revealed. and several other items to come out sequentially. i felt the times a double those quite well. i trusted neil's discretion on this and had taken never to cover me on this in various ways. that was all in 1968 when neil was the pentagon representative of the times. i think in 1971 when i went to him -- he was no longer -- i cannot

remember this exactly but not sure he was any longer covering the pentagon. for the times. mainly, i had gone to him before and i trusted him when he was in town. when it became a question of giving it to somebody on the times, neil was the obvious person. >> at that point, you have decided on a new strategy with the pentagon papers? >> yes it was suggested -- they suggested i give it to neil sheehan. they had already given it to him. >> you mean the three at the ips? >> yes, this is the part that has yet to be worked out at this late date exactly what happened here. neil and mark raskin tell quite different stories. they all agree that ips gave a lot of documents to neil sheehan

and the significance of that is disputed or what followed from that. >> you're are not the first to give him the pentagon papers? >> no i did not know that until a year or two ago. i'll tell you exactly what i learned -- in the spring of 2002, i guess the spring of 2002, mark raskin gave some interviews which led me to talk to ips. he would be a good one to talk to. this is the first i knew of this. neil had never told me anything about it. concealing his sources, you know.

they had, in fact, given him all i had given them which was 1000 pages of important stuff and did that in january late january of 1971. it's in the book, i think i went to him in early march of 1971 after it was suggested i go to neil. it was not once a dental that they suggest i go to neil. with their calculations were is complicated. that means to me that someone at the times knew about that story long before they admitted because neil had to have discussed that with people high on the times who probably kept it closely held. >> have you talked to neil since

then? >> he has not talked much about them. -- about that. the times involvement remains very sensitive, and internal secret of some sort. what i have to infer is that the times has been lying steadily, everybody on the times, many of them probably didn't know the facts. some did and whoever it was who knew has been dissimilarity all this time about who knew -- diss imilating all his time about who knew. it was even before i dealt with neil rather than much later. anyway, that's another story. >> what warning did you have that the papers would appear on the front page? >> for reasons that neil would

not really talk about -- all of a sudden, he was very friendly to me, as far as i knew. some of the reasons for not saying some things are not ordinarily journalistic practice not to tell me of the time that he had an earlier from somebody else and keeping them secret is normal journalistic practice. why he would keep that up for 35 years seemed -- in particular, it remains somewhat mysterious to me that he did not tell me from the time he himself copied the papers and

he said he wouldn't to which i gave him access, he had copied them and then later, he asked me if he could have physical possession of the copies which i postponed. this is all getting complicated. let me say it's more simply. when i gave him access to the papers in the apartment of patricia's half brother in cambridge, i asked him not to copy them or to take them with him to the times in dealing with them to get a decision because i felt as soon as there was a copy out, it's totally out of my control and those copies will be copied by other people. there will be copies around and then i figured the times would

probably not agree to publish them in the end. they will think about it and they will shy away from it just as albright had. and mccloskey and matthias and everybody have had second thoughts. i thought they would not do it in the end. then the copies would be all over the place. somebody will tell the fbi. later events showed there was a good deal of realism to that concern. i said i will take that chance at the point you tell me that the times is seriously interested in running these. they think they probably will. i don't ask for guarantees. they can change their minds of the last moment, obviously. but i want to know that they really think and they probably will. it's their current intent. then i will take the chance of letting them have the copies and if they change their mind afterwards,. that's too bad before that, i don't want you to

have copies, just discuss it. he said to convince them to do it, i need more. i said i'm sorry neil i don't want you to give them until i have more insurance. you just have to try to convince them. in fact it turns out -- he said can i read them? i said i can read -- i said you can read them and take notes but don't xerox. i gave him a key to the apartment where they were being held so he could read them and take notes. he immediately arranged with the times to get money for copying and brought his wife down to copy them and checked into a motor hotel and took all the papers out and got them copied for the times. so that i could not back out. i never blamed him for doing this. in effect, it was -- he did not

have to do that but i felt it was pretty much what i had done. this material must get out and i want to be sure that it does. he got it copied. when i learned about it, that seems to me -- i can even admire that as journalistic behavior. even though it involves lying to me. what i never fully understood was why he never did tell me that the times was working on it. the reason why that is odd is not knowing that they were serious, i continued to try to get them out by other channels. he was taking that risk that i would succeed in getting it out. it was after that that i talked to mccloskey, for example, and gave him about 1000 pages or so or more. i showed it to some other people and i showed some to howard

zannon and noam chomsky. to get their feedback and i dealt with matthias and so forth. he was taking a real risk that by not telling me -- i think he feared that if he told me that they were about to do it that i would get real busy and try harder to get it out through congress. i'm just trying to rationalize what he was doing. indeed, i might have done that unless he told me not to. if he had told me seriously that this will not happen unless the times has a scoop, don't do it and here's why it's better -- i would have obeyed that. i take it he did not trust me to do that. he thought i might try to get it out summer else. it was a misunderstanding somehow. anyway, he did not tell me. the first i knew that the times

-- oh he went further and said the times has put this on the back burner. is that they are not making a decision on it and they have given me another job to work on. but i would like to keep myself current on it and do more reading on it. i'm working in new york, is it all right if i actually take a copy of it best to mar. i said ok, go ahead and i have always told him that when i give you the copies, as far as i'm concerned, it's out of my hands. i know i cannot control it. that's my ok to go ahead. even though he had not told me yet, i changed my mind and let him have a copy. that was about in april. they were working night and day

meanwhile at the new york hilton to put it out. actually, this uncertainty from me protested that persisted until the last day. -- persisted until the last day. i learned senator gravelle was going to do a filibuster against the draft which was about to expire. i thought this is the perfect material for him to use in his filibuster and we could get it out on the floor of the senate. i had it in my apartment with the intent that i was going to take it to washington on monday and it would gravelle on the issue -- and deal with gravelle on the issue, handed to him. i had never allowed it in the apartment before lest i be caught.

on saturday the 12th, i get a call from a on the times -- from a guy on the times who i had also given part of the papers for his book on the tonkin gulf. he told me almost crying that the material i gave him, he said the times has it and they have the whole study. i said really? of course i had given them the whole thing but i had not told does been told they were doing anything. he said yes, they are bringing it out tomorrow. he said this place is locked up tighter than a german they're afraid the fbi will come in and confiscate it or enjoin them. -- he said this place is locked up tighter than a drum and they're afraid the fbi will come in and confiscate it or enjoin them.

so nobody can get in or out. he said my book is ruined. the times will scoop it tomorrow. the book was coming out in a month. i said maybe this will give you more publicity for the book and make more interest in the book. he said no,no - he was right as it turned out, it did kill his book. it was called the president's war. even though he was onto something the times did not have. the book did not get much attention. i said that's very interesting i'm sorry about your book. i put in a call to neil who was unavailable. i had the pentagon papers in my apartment and they were worried the fbi was going to come. they had not mentioned i should expect an fbi raid any minute. i called my friend howard zinn

and i asked him to store something for me tonight. we were going to see "butch cassidy and the sundance kid" in harvard square that evening with roz and howard. we went over to his apartment. i took the pentagon papers with me and i gave them to him to store and then we went to see "butch cassidy and the sundance kid." that night, i wanted to the harvard square station kiosk and got the first addition of the pentagon papers coming out. >> did you think you would go to jail? >> yes, i had always assumed i would go to jail if they chose to prosecute. i knew there was a slight chance they might not choose to prosecute for political reasons.

in fact, ehrlichman advise the president not to prosecute. that was good advice. if he had followed that, he would've stayed in office. essentially. strictly speaking, it would still be concerned about the other stuff i had but the plumbers would have come in. if i had not been on trial dean's revelations could have been kept secret. i was still on trial 10 days after of it and he had to set -- send it to the committee. they could have set on that information successfully. ehrlichman's advice was good. i thought if they prosecute which is 97% likely, i'm bound to be convicted -- 7000 pages of

top-secret documents. as might lawyer said to me, it has a bad ring to it. moreover, 7000 pages, i could go away for life not just a year or two or five years. i expected to go to jail. >> for life? >> for life for 30 years. not necessarily consecutive life terms. i was put on trial facing 12 felony counts, 11 were worth 10 years each in the conspiracy count was five years so 115 year possible sentence. with good behavior, i would only serve 1/3 of that which is 35 years. i would be getting out this year. that's 35 years after 1973 which is when the trial ended. >> did the f ei --

the administration feared the fbi was not working hard enough to prosecute you? >> yes, my wife can tell you about this. the story was all over that he feared the fbi would not go after it liddy thought they wouldn't go after it because lewis was such a close buddy of j edgar hoover. they never met. did you know that? >> no. >> lewis marks never met j edgar hoover and he was a right-wing republican that admired j edgar hoover but he did what he did for everybody he knew slightly. he would send j edgar hoover boxes and boxes of mark's toys to give out his presence at christmas. when i was in vietnam and engaged to his daughter, i got boxes that i can give out to

embassy people and vietnamese and whatnot. he must've sent thousands of boxes two friends and associates. he was sent j edgar hoover boxes of toys to give out as an admirer and they knew people in common. because of the right-wing circles my father-in-law moved in. i think he was on a list of friends of the fbi. actually i think his name was brennan, the officer in charge of the investigation, when he listed people that should be interviewed, with respect to me, they listed my father-in-law and stepmother in law everybody. and they had a box next to each one approved or not approved.

apparently the records seem to show that hoover disapproved the interview of marks on the grounds it was a friend of the fbi. they apparently misread this and assigned someone to interview marx which did not happen. lewis marx would have been more than happy to be interviewed and put me in prison. he was in it and republican and wanted me in prison. lewis marx would never see me again after the pentagon papers came out and his oldest son has never see me again for 37 years now. the father is dead now. it would have been happy to do it. when hoover learned that brennan

has scheduled an interview against him, he was curious and wanted to read and sign -- reassigned brennan to the equivalent of siberia somewhere. he had to be prevailed on that this would not good. that brennan was a good guy and he could not do that. that's what that was about. in fact, there is no question of them not being interested in me. it was specifically lewis marx that hoover was inclined not to have interviewed. the stepmother was interviewed by the way. she did not mind being interview. none of the pete -- none of these people minded. he was envious, he wanted to be interviewed. remember the fbi knew who put

at the pentagon papers because they had known it since early 1970. they had been told by my former wife's mother-in-law, her father's wife, not her mother second wife -- the stepmother had told -- i got the wrong relationship there. >> it's your mother-in-law, your step mother-in-law. >> my step mother-in-law. her stepmother. >>her father's second wife is her stepmother. i do this all the time. ok, she had become quite conservative and her older age and she went right to the fb

i having been told by my former wife that i have copied the pentagon papers. the fbi knew this from either late december, 1969 or 1970 and interviewed rand. i think i had to cut this out of the book for space. i had a whole chapter on it. the fbi came to rand in april of 1970 having already tried to interview my wife. my former wife have been advised by her lawyer not to see him unless with a lawyer and they don't interview people with lawyers so they gave up on that. they came to rand, harry rowan and the security officers in various people, to tell them the story that i copied the pentagon papers and apparently i had copied a large top-secret study

and given it to fulbright and goodell. the president of rand told them that those people had a right to see it anyway. as senators, they could get it. that was a mistake because when albright asked for the study four times, he was simply refused. he did not get it. even a well informed -- he was in the cover and it -- he was in the government and was well informed that he assumed the senator had a right and the senators thought that. but, no. harry actually said it is not a security issue. at this point, knowing it had gone to fulbright and gioogoodell

backed off. since fulbright was involved they ought it had the potential to embarrass the bureau if they pursue this issue. it would come out and fulbright might hurt them on appropriations is somehow and get into a fight with the senator from arkansas. so they backed off in about may of 1970. it was a year before the pentagon papers. when the pentagon papers came out, they knew who had given it very quickly. what is not clear from the files -- i have gotten -- what is it -- i think 24,000 pages -- let's see no, i've gotten 16,000 pages and

files from the fbi. i've never gone through them too much. a lot of it was blacked out. from what i did read, it's not clear whether the fbi ever made clear to the white house that they had known about this a year earlier and had not moved on it. on the other hand, it's possible they did tell henry kissinger and others. there's some indication that kissinger knew about it. this has been somewhat murky. >> my last question is your relationship with henry kissinger -- he was initially madder than anyone else in the oval office? >> the history of that is belied by the case very strongly. i'm surprised to hear you say that. in the book, the first discussion on june 13 between him and nixon -- haven't you seen that? >> i'm sure i have.

but wasn't he upset? >> it was a very mild reaction. the idea of someone putting out the piece was very ominous as a precedent for others because they have a lot of secrets that had to be kept secret from the public. and from congress. the question was -- it was a question of whether the person had access. there is a lot of discussion between nixon and kissinger -- what does state have come a what does laird have - rogers laird were both skeptics of their policy. kissinger assures them that i have not given state or defense real data on what our plans are. he said don't worry about it.

all they know is what we have done. not why we have done it. i don't tell them that. the secretary of state or the secretary of defense. i went back to corrupt department tatian -- i will i go back to come part mentation. they might object to it and i might evenly. one of the first suspicions by nixon and kissinger was that layered - laird had leaked the pentagon papers. that's why they did not give that information. in other words, so long as i did not know much as far as next and new about his policy, nixon had no reason to fear me. i am at rand. kissinger knew i knew a little more than was led on. as far as i can tell from the record or memoirs, kissinger -- for the tapes -- kissinger never

did reveal tonight's and that i had worked for him or on the options paper or at all for the pierre -- the indication is he talks about my dealing with him in the late 1960's. and then again a meeting he had with me in 1971 at a conference where i confronted him, and m.i.t. conference. it does not mention in that conversation that i had worked in his office in early 1959 or that i had two long discussions with him at san clemente in 1970. i infer from these omissions these strange histories which goes up to this point and breaks off and picks up here that he did not want to admit to nixon

that the man who just released the pentagon papers had worked directly for him in the next administration. >> which is why nixon assumed there had to be a conspiracy. >> there had to be a conspiracy that i must have gotten it from somebody else. they have had a discussion of the fact that i had worked on this, frank discussion, they both would discussed that that's all he has. it would not follow but as far a somebody else had to give it to me but when they realized that i had documents from the nixon nsc, nixon had to assume i had gotten it from someone else. kissinger did not have to assume that. >> to see the first part of this interviewer or watch this portion again, visit our website at www.c-span.org/history. this is american history tv on c-span three. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend. on c-span twos book tv, tonight

at 10:00 eastern on afterwards, former marine and were corresponded david morris on the history of post-traumatic stress disorder that affects over 27 million americans including himself. sunday night at 8:00 am a former navy seal sniper scott taylor argues the obama administration is hurting our national security. on american history tv on c-span three, the commemoration of bloody sunday when 50 years ago voters rights advocates begin a march from summit to montgomery alabama and were met with violence by state and local police. that begins at noon eastern. we are live from soma with your phone calls followed by the commemorative ceremony with president obama and congressman john lewis. on sunday, our live coverage continues with a service from historic round chapel ame church, the starting pouring for the selma-montgomery marches. follow our complete schedules at www.c-span.org and let us know what you are watching.

you can call us or e-mail us or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> today at 9:30 a.m. eastern, american history tv will be live from the steps of the lincoln memorial for the 150th anniversary commemoration of president lincoln's second inaugural address. thousands gathered on the east front of the u.s. capitol to hear the speech on march 4 1865 several weeks before the end of the civil war and lincoln's assassination. in partnership with the national park service, the lincoln group of d.c. will host a reenactment of the president's speech as well as musical performances and speeches by chuck todd of meet the press and historians admit green medford and lucas morale this morning at 9:30 a.m. eastern time here on american history tv on c-span three.

>> all weekend long, american history tv is joining our comcast cable partners to showcase the history of galveston, texas. to learn more about the cities are 2015 tour, visit www.c-span.org/cities tour. we continue now with our look at the history of galveston. this is american history tv on c-span 3 -- ♪ ♪ ♪