will be completing the centennial of the spanish-american war beginning in 2048. [applause] >> the civil war air's here every saturday 6:00 and 10:00 p.m.. to watch more of our program anytime, visit our website. you are watching american history tv every weekend on c-span3. >> coming up next, from the university of virginia, a conference on the and of the

civil war. the virginia sesquicentennial commission organized this hour-long event. >> welcome all of you. to our panel. the topic of the second panel is the stream of memory of the war that is often termed the lost cause. we have three historians on the panel. john caroline, and ed. i want to start the panel to talk about what the lost cause interpretation of the war meant and what are the principal tenants of the lost cause explanation for the coming of the war and the conduct of the war. >> i think it's important that we talk about the origin of the term.

it harkens back to sir walter scott and the revolution or the rebellion of 1745. it's also important for people to realize while we today tend to think of it as a term it did originate during the war and the term is used shortly after the war. [indiscernible]

>> revisionism. briefly, the term lost cause originated before the war. it was published in 1866. it was a term used widely by confederates after the war. it is not just a term we attached as historians. there was a masthead that said defeated but not dishonored. >> it seems like a strange name to give something that you're in favor of. you know? it's sort of focusing on the lost part of it seems like

an an admission of defeat in a way. historian: lost cause was a foil for it's lost but can't be lost because what is right that defeated but not dishonored. it was a foil for making the point that you're making, that yes, lost in the literal sense but not lost because it was wrong. but it's probably a good segway for karen. >> it was not about slavery but a constitutional struggle.

they were simply overwhelmed by northern manpower and material and the fourth tenant that they were nearly god-like figures and southern women on the home front were devoted to the confederate effort. coski: what's your interpretation of slavery? in the lost cause? janey: that it was not a cause of the war. that these men and women had been faithful to their masters the confederate cause. that slavery had been benevolent and good thing for african-americans and we see a lot of this especially as the 19th century goes on this becomes increasingly part of the story.

historian: what's the task they're facing? >> to some degree it's reactive that there's a pre-emptive fear -- the old adage that the winners write the history, that expecting and anticipating that would happen and that the winners would not only write the history but unfavorably to the south and already the context immediately after the war you think about the issues that were then current that were discussed in the magazines at the time and newspapers at the time. particularly the issue of treatment of prisoners, for example. andersonville and other places and the southerners were guilty

of war crimes. mistreatment of prisoners. andersonville being a rallying cry. that gave a pretty good idea what the south could expect and how it would be treated in the history of the war so the -- to some degrees this was inevitable. i defeated people, if given the opportunity, they're going to try to exercise what we would call spin control today, spin it in a way that is favorable to the south. >> that's what i'm interested in. what's the scale of the thing they have to spin? professor janey: they have to explain to their children and grandchildren what they fought for. they feel this deep desire and deep need which is understandable to vindicate themselves. they had to explain their actions. >> and they would explain their actions to the world at the same time. they're very aware from the very beginning of the entire sectional crisis they're playing to an international audience for a very long time.

and people at the time of the civil war realize they are making history and so thoroughly documented thank goodness for historians. they keep stealing g lances across the atlantic to make sure the civilization of which they consider themselves a part is sanctioning what they're doing. what's interesting we need to remember at the beginning of the civil war it's not clear at all who has the moral high ground on that. link it kind of a quick akkadian -- equivocating on would he destroy slavery, no. the south is saying what we're all about defending rights that we have from an encroaching power and some people in europe are like, okay. it goes back to john's point about the british story of all this and sir walter scott -- there's a kind of a script you would follow about sacrificing yourself for a noble cause, for something higher than

self-interest or gain and that's how they spin it. >> they also have to explain the people who led the succession movement and have to find a positive way to talk about an event that cost a quarter of their military age white men killed and destroyed their social system. >> they start doing that before the war's even over. they actually begin trying to explain how it was that we could give everything we have and still lose. >> and overwhelming numbers is a get out of jail free card. we couldn't have won. there is no loss of honor. >> it goes back to the idea of lost cause. they were doomed to lose. you see that kind of language come up that it was the insurmountable numbers that if they hadn't been fighting for something so right

that they believed in so deeply they would have been foolished to have launched and fought in the war. >> but they had no choice to accept war. the way we usually teach the war you lay out the objective strength of each side and the manpower and the populations and the manufacturing capability and you say, they'd be fools so accept it. when you get to the end of the war and start talking about overwhelming numbers, we never had a chance, then it sort of raises the question of why the heck did they ever accept war if they knew this was the inevitable outcome and what type of moral culpability. they accepted the war they knew they were doomed from the start and put everything at risk by accepting war, firing the first shot, whichever way you push to portray it. but they put everything at risk. they risked all and lost all.

and it's not only foolish but it looks like their moral culpability for all that death and destruction by accepting a fight they couldn't win. >> that's why they don't blame themselves for starting a fire. -- war. they praise themselves once it comes to them because of abraham lincoln's arrogance. so you talked about the people who created succession have to blame themselves. but a lot of people who had to fight for the confederacy had to oppose succession and that ironically in the same way they lost in a war that they would have had good reason to think they would lose, the fact they went into it reluctantly shows.

>> talk about just how the dramatic the shift of ground on the importance of slavery. the what they say retrospectively on slavery and on the question whether this was an impossible. just those two things. professor janey: we look at the confederate constitution is written to protect slavery. if we look at the commissioner's book "apostles of this union" is a fantastic look at what they were saying and elsewhere trying to convince the upper south states to secede and it's about the language of slavery. protecting slavery and race relations and all the horrible things that were going to happen. to be fair, democrats are using the same language to warn about the republican party prior to

the election. but there is no doubt in the minds of successionists that slavery at the heart of this. >> they're not embarrassed in the slightest. this is something they're willing to stake everything on whether or not congress has the power to control slavery in the territories. if the republican party comes to power and does that, then are they going to extend their reach to where slavery already exists? there is a real papal fear. >> it is not just protecting economic self interest but also the fact that chaos will ensue. you'll have what they would consider a real civil war. >> they will have haiti, which the image. >> it seemed to suggest that the

union -- that the north would be fomenting slavery and they had to scale that back in the final. but there is that fear and talking about playing to the international audience, the british did not want to see in another haiti in the u.s.. at the same time, while there was this forthright acknowledge of slavery as the region, -- reason, they knew it was not playing well internationally. recognition was not going to come if it was based on slavery. and of course in the latter days of the war trying to get to send a diplomat to france and england to hint we are willing to give up slavery for recognition and independence, that was the last gasp. but there was a recognition all along and slavery wasn't playing well. if you read through some of the

wartime messages you'll get a sublimation of the importance of slavery even during the war. >> and you get an explanation it was the industrial north and agrarian south. they're translating it into terms that the people in europe could understand that this is -- they are threatening the very foundations of our economy and not about slavery, it's about this thing you're experiencing too industrialization. that ends up being reinvented by people of political opinions over the generations. professor janey: we tend to think of the lost cause and i just said one of the tenants is that that it's not about slavery but that is not as of april, 1865, or even december, that's not off the record.

people are still talking about it and i have a quote from soldiers of the 6th georgia who are saying, absolutely we went to war to fight for slavery. these men are not unclear about what it was that -- what institution they -- >> and they were predicting bloodshed and chaos as a result. >> the racial control part you often hear that only 30% of confederates own slaves which is true so how could you it have been -- everyone had a stake in racial control and that -- it's not just economic but also racial control and the reactions to the emancipation proclamation including lee, he was extremely unhappy with it. an invitation to war and the

instruction of control. >> this goes back to the international audience. they would say what the north is doing is knocking down the very foundations of civilization. they would say look how england is behaving. everywhere they are going, they're keeping people of other races under control and that's what what we were doing. now the north is acting irresponsibly. it all fits together in a coherent hole. it's playing defense and offense at the same time. it's very situational. depends on whatever challenge you give to it it heals quickly. >> but it grew organically. they didn't have a conference at nd decide, lost cause, everyone on board with that name? what are our points? >> but it is interesting how quickly it did.

>> partly because it has roots in the war. let's insert some human beings into this and talk about who some of the leading architects of this interpretation of the war were. professor janey: we certainly need to start with the war. lee. >> that is a good place to start. >> we already visited that in the first session. complex it is like being a college president. people write things for you, you change a word or two. that is why i'm just reading the teleprompter right now. [laughter] >> we all know the language. we can probably recite general

order number nine. the about the operative phrases. four years of arduous service marked by fortitude that the soldiers were all brave and did their duty. it's compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources. duty faithfully performed and constantsy and devotion to your country. there were no desserters in this scenario. there is the unity of the south. the soldiers all fought courageously to the end until they were compelled to surrender. the women were all behind the war efforts. so were the enslaved african american. it was an organic unified society in defense of the confederacy. the confederacy and the south were the same. it was all heroic but lost and they lost because of overwhelming numbers and resources.

and even that was not new. you go back into jefferson davis's messages and he's no idea of a quotable man. none of us can recite any -- jefferson's quotes are not recited but they lay the lost cause. during the war speaking about that kind of unity and recognizing this unity, one of my favorite documents from the war in which you see the lost causes is the address of the congress to the confederate people released in december 18 '63 and '64. things looked dark but they're not hopeless and most importantly if you look at what's happening in the south today what the cost is of sub juigation, the word use universally. what it means for us. we know what it means because

we're seeing it all over the south states. the imperative of continuing to fight and be unified. in that message, it deals with all these things, superior resources from the north and so the for two of our cause -- and virtue of our cause. southern unity and will to resist invasion and the invincible lee. he's this general and he's invincible. one thing that is different because it is during the war, a long passage about the righteousness of slavery. rather than denying it in the wartime context, rather than trying to subordinate the role this is the greatest institution. >> in fact what's going to be lost, subjugation will bring the destruction of slavery. >> and turning black people into

slaves. >> >> as well as destruction of property and the real -- the more tangible costs that people were already experiencing which were fuelling the resentment and the hatred that would fool the lost cause. >> to talk about lee a little bit, both his importance to the lost cause interpretation and his role in spreading this does he have a role in spreading this interpretation? >> he does and he doesn't. lee is, can i back up here and talk about the ladies and little bit. >> by all means talk about the ladies. >> let me talk about the ladies. we have these ideas that are out there about lee already as this god-like figure and the ideas that john just spoke about and very quickly in may of 1865 after the surrender and after lincoln's assassination we find it in winchester, these

women who had been nurses during the war quickly transforming their role and becoming the chief purveyors of confederate memory. what they want to make sure those men who fought honorably and bravely had decent burials. they instigate this process which quickly spreads throughout the south by the next year of women's associations going out and hiring other people to find those confederate soldiers who were unmarked graves and bring them into confederate national cemeteries, cemeteries that are not unlike arlington or gettysburg. this is their way of paying honor to that confederate cause. pain honor to those who fought valiantly and gave everything to this cause. it he not just that these women

instigate burying the dead but it is the memorial day celebration. this happens in spring of 1866. and the women are leading the show but they invite former con federates, politicians, men like former governor to come back and give speeches that are political in their nature. the fact that women do this and women can say we're not political and they literally say these things, we're not political and acting on behalf of the confederate state, we're simply women mourning our dead but they provide a platform for politicians to come and denounce union occupation. reconstruction policies. to get to the point of a lee they are constantly writing letters to lee saying, you can show up and give a speech or send us money and he thanks them in his private way but he never

publically shows up at these events to give a public face and give his name and credence to what they're doing. >> that's part of his great contribution. at appomattox, to continue the theater of disinterested gentlemenly noble apolitical in a way behavior in the same way he went into the war reluctantly it nobled his -- in nobles his sacrifice, the fact that he ends in a gentlemanly way enobles his sacrifice. >>he did win victories against long odds. they don't have to make that up. he's the most important confederate during the war and after the war. but he's not really writing things and giving speeches. he's not out pushing this interpretation of the war that way. others are doing that. >> he's a passive supporter. >> sure. >> a symbolic supporter.

>> and the most important symbol. >> like lincoln, after his death he became more important to that cause then he did in the five years for the war and his death. within days organizations formed , in order to start building statues to him. >> to say things about him that he would have -- any individuals i'm not going to press this too long, but are there some people who are more important than others and had a real impact. >> there is a big elephant in the room. >> tell us about him. >> early -- we can all talk about early. >> confederate elephants.

>> that will be a museum piece along with confederate dinosaurs. what we were talking about earlier, no pun intended, of those who became not only architect but spokesman for the lost cause, but who had been a unionist. >> how strong? >> to be one of those 45 votes against secession the second time around. after fort sumter. he was one of those, even after fort sumter in l, lincoln's call for troops. he voted against succession and took a lot of grief for it. but once committed like so many people starting with davis for that matter, once committed, the commitment was absolute and of course he also -- ironically or maybe not so ironically but early had risen from so many generals did and independent

command in 1864 valley campaign which began well and ended disastrously and was removed from command. he in a sense suffered at the hands of lee. a rebuke that could have hurt the man's pride and ego. but and then spent a couple of days after the war to exile and escaped to canada because he was fearful of the retribution for what his troops did in the burning of this place in franklin county. when he finally came pack and after lee's death he became more or less the leading spokesman among virginians who breathe new life into the southern historical society which had been founded in new orleans in 1869. >> lee is central to him. >> yes. >> he lets you talk about the confederacy without talking

about slavery. you can emphasize victories and long odds. >> he was the best face than anyone could imagine. >> the fact that he had been a national figure before a sectional figure was important as well and that his loyalty was sort of anguished and then the fact that he gives it to the state before the confederacy has a common cleansing effect. >> that's the loyalty that everyone stresses. all you need to know about lee is that he's a virginian. >> i think early serves as a good reminder to us not everyone is on board with the lost cause and that even among those who are on board with the lost cause, there's tension because as i mentioned these ladies memorial organizations had been leading the show since 1865, 1866 and 1870 when lee dies and early comes back center stage he

tries to take the spotlight away from these women and says, thanks for all you've done but i'll take it from here and the ladies saying, no, no and we like what we've been doing and we like the role we have now and we'll take it from here and will we'll take it from here and there's this tense gender conflict that goes back and forth. >> persistent into the early 20th century and beyond. almost every major chapter and evolution of the lost cause and the manifestations of monuments and organizations there was a split between men and woman. >> a split between men and woman and among men. longstreet comes to mind. >> you mentioned mosby, they hated each other.

>> i have a great mosby quote. partly because mows buy is a graduate of this university. professor janey: he didn't graduate. >> he would have but he was in jail. i left that part out. i was trying to be polite. >> didn't he shoot a professor here? just another person. >> longstreet and mosby were critics of lost cause partly because they decided they should be republicans and that that was seen as the greatest betrayal of a lost cause issue is casting your lot with the victors. why there was all this hard feelings, it's not calculated to make men love each other and neither is a rehearsal of the

wrongs which insight suffered. he said, i committed treason and i'm proud of it. he says, men fight from sentiment. after the war is over they invent some fanciful theory why they imagine they fought. the fact it's not that they couldn't imagine the counter argument to the lost cause. it had to be rebuilt over and over again with different kind of constituencies. we don't have many other really leading confederates who take the lead in the lost cause. it's second or third. >> davis becomes a powerful -- >> the general to our -- john gordon. >> we're all talking at the same time which i'm going to stop right now. john gordon.

>> i thought were you going to tell us about john gordon. [laughter] professor janey: he becomes the commander. i think the timing of some of this is important to keep in mind that the grand army of the republics which was the primary union veterans organization forms in 1866 and the confederate can't for political reasons don't officially organize until 1889. but gordon does become a very powerful figure. we can talk about reconciliation hopefully but he plays this role between promoting reconciliation. he's a senator after that and that's something that he probably wants to promote. but he's very much a mouth piece for confederate veterans and

thinking about what they fought for and making sure one of his big things was making sure that his children and grandchildren understood what the sacrifice had been about, why everything had been committed to this cause. >> and that becomes increasingly the ultimate goal. to be respected by the families. it gets harder and harder to do. people saying, people just don't get it. you have people paying to go to decoration day. we wouldn't want to forget that time was the enemy as well. and people really can do -- want to forget and they'd like to move on with their lives and trying to figure out how they navigate these things. over half of northern veterans belong to this veterans organization. a larger percentage of united states veterans belong to their

veteran organization than con federates due to there. we think of the north going on with their lives. but they were thinking about the civil war a lot as well. >> how many? >> 82,000. at its peak. >> do you have a percentage of what that would be? >> surviving, no. >> there would have been around 650,000 or 700,000 veterans alive at the end of the year. confederates. let's go -- you've opened the door for to us go to the strong notion that exists both among interested laypeople who come to the civil war and in the literature and that's that the lost the war but

won the peace. how does that argument come about. >> let me describe how people would say that. >> on the political realm, after reconstruction, the white south is allowed to do whatever it wants with memorialization -- >> on its own terms. >> right, to build as many statues in every town it wants to. and more importantly to adjudicate race relations. the people who argued that the south won the peace are focusing mainly on the fact that the racial order in disfranchisement and that what some of the republicans had argued for at the moment of reconstruction is set aside. i think that the bottom line is what people mean by that. but there are other elements to it as well. >> i would add to it that there

seems to be a popular perception that union soldiers didn't have a cause at all. that cause certainly didn't include fighting against slavery or for emancipation. that memory of the war i think is false. certainly in my estimation, the lost cause doesn't triumph over other memories of the war. be they unionist or emancipation us to at least for those who lived during the time. we can make that argument by the 1920's or 1930's as our next generation comes about, but unionists did not forget. they were adamant that not only had they fought to preserve the union. and many of them added to end slavery although it increasely has a different meaning. >> our next panel will talk about that.

how many former rebels, really important rebels, and up on postage stamps and with a home that is a national shrine? the two great figures of the civil war were lincoln and lee. how do we explain that. >> that to me, the way you ask that question is more than just the question itself. i was reading those books as a child as well. i came to a consciousness of the civil war and took it for granted. it has only been the last 15-20 years that i have noticed how extraordinary it is. we take it for granted. lee is on a postage stamp. >> he is on five postage stamps. >> we have monument avenue in richmond. how extraordinary it is the

losing side not only got, their major figures were not executed that the people were not sent to reeducation camps. they were able to impart their own history to their children and grandchildren. through the romance of the war influence people today. the commemorative landscape of the south is so confederate. people take offense when there is any effort to rename monuments and streets and take things down. they take for granted that was the way it always was and always should be. to my knowledge, there is no other civilization where the

civil war ended for such level of triumph for the defeated. to that degree the settlement of the war, the lost cause in particular. the help of the american nation has allowed it to foster reconciliation to the degree we have not had episodes every 10 years where you cannot put up a statue of robert e lee. that's not happen. there was not a second civil war over the memory of the war. >> everybody else on the panel is itching to talk. >> that did happen at first. 18 66, the reconstruction act went into effect, there is a dampening down throughout the south. no more celebrations or orders. new orleans the orphans association is forbidden from

calling it the confederate orphans association. there is an everett to dampen it down. it only lasts 2-3 years. part of that. is what the war had been about in the first place. it goes back to the magnanimous surrender. if the wars about surrender in the first place, how much of a heavy foot do you put on white southerners who want to honor their dead? at what went the you draw the line? that is where the politics of reconstruction and the contexts at the time make it great. >> we talk about the cultural component of it. the commemorative component. the fact is the south lost political influence. not to get it back for a

century, at least. lost out economically. the economy was shattered. the federal policy was never redesigned to benefit the south. in the literature we tend to focus too much on the cultural stuff. we forget the north wanted reconciliation because it had one everything it wanted. even reconstruction which we see as a failure was a failure from the viewpoint of african-americans to read from the viewpoint of white northerners, great. they are vilified as a threat to the nation going forward. we can let them have statues . >> it is a small price. >> the treat it as a symbol of local autonomy. that is the main tangible thing

may get. they have until the civil rights era. it is hard for me to recapture at least in my classes the degree to which the south and northern allies of the south utterly dominated the u.s. government. all from the time of the constitution down to the election of abraham lincoln. it is a stunning degree of control. that never comes back. how little control they had. the only democrat until the depression, grover cleveland and woodrow wilson should not have been democrat. -- president. there would have been that entire stretch with only grover cleveland. >> we think of fdr as the least southern president he is president because of whites. that is the big pivot.

the power of the federal government. that comes in ads and flows in the conceptualization of it for a long time. it ships to the cultural and race relations part. today, a lot of people with the back and go, look at how much this -- >> the one way former confederate states could wield power was long-term congressional members can read the clock is moving on. i want us to talk for the next 10 minutes about how the lost cause resonated during the centennial and here during the sus >> sending toe sesquicentennial. >> the centennial, the key

point, there is not just one thing called the lost cause. it is constantly shifting. the tenants have been consistent but the strategies people have used, the emphasis they have made within those have shifted. at the time of the centennial, it is the time of the cold war. reconciliation is embraced by the white north, partly because the u.s. needs to stay strong. unified. without a unified u.s., they would not have won world war ii. now the unified u.s., we will not win the cold war. that is another reason for the reconciliation that is part of the lost cause. i can tell the story about when virginia built its centennial headquarters in richmond. there was a mercury space capsule outside. it is about at this moment

celebrating the greatest of the u.s. if we will only stay unified. of course we all know what was just around the corner in the early 1960's. maybe one of my friends would like to pick up. >> the civil rights movement is going on right at the same time as the centennial. the famous brouhaha when the commission, the national commission, is set to meet in charleston. the african-american representative from new jersey because of segregation laws in charleston, is not allowed to stay at the hotel. jfk kind of doesn't know exactly what to do. eventually they and a going to the charleston navy yard. federal property. they can have the meeting there. the social conditions of the

south, the lost cause message is at odds with what the national commission headed by grant wanted to do which was all about reconciliation, responding to this cold war context as well. >> wouldn't it be ironic if the centennial occurred within the context that the same issues were being debated the same way? questions about state versus local authority. exactly, the subject of my work. drag out in very much the same way. the reaction against integration. >> it is called the second reconstruction. >> a new life as the symbol of white southerners against the

government meddling. we have been through this, 100 years ago. it is one of the ironyies, things don't just happen out neatly but it did. the embarrassing episodes of reenactment, the troubles they should of the war through reenactments. trying to be as inclusive as possible through these waters. there was lost cause sentiment. the federation of southern states the confederate state commission forms a war.

there was something of a shadow movement. a movement by people the governor of mississippi, to use the centennial as a showcase for civil rights. to show people once again, we are the righteous side. states rights in defense of segregation. using the confederacy to show people we are on the right side. >> let's fast-forward to the last four years. where can we find echoes of the lost cause in the sesquicentennial? >> early on, the reenactment of the inauguration. i think there were some real

lost cause messages that were part of that. there is no national commission. probably in response to some of the issues from the centennial. >> in some ways we are having this session where we are analyzing the lost cause as not just a presence but something with a history. the big things of the sesquicentennial have been including everybody in the story. in the past, the lost cause had a large part of all of this. now in some ways, the fact that we are talking about it as an academic topic may suggest it is not the overwhelming consensual cultural force.

it strikes me that we found a voice that is not just the opposite of it. we recognize people. why some people support it and some people did not. that also just we can see -- during the civil rights struggle, they wanted unification to resist the federal government. now that moment has come and gone. the cultural impulse for solidarity does not seem to be as great. people want to be respected. they want to have the things they believe in. the sesquicentennial by putting historical knowledge and fact front and center, actually is trying to see things in a way

that is inclusive because it includes all the parts that history included. >> what do you think? 20 seconds. >> i was just composing my thoughts. it has been remarkable. virginia has been the leader. it has been remarkable and has made virginians very proud creating the most significant programs. yet there is its attachment now. during the centennial, it was a cold war context. the narrative had to be despite the bloodshed of the civil war the messiness of it, it made us a stronger nation. the context has changed. now we can give it some rougher edges. we can deal more with complexity. if anything, the confederate side of the story has been left

out. the pendulum has swung the other way. the lost cause messages is not only not dominant but hardly present at all. we are not afraid of more stories as a rule because we realize there are more stories. despite the lost cause's tenant that the south was unified, that was not the case. we are not afraid to deal with the complexity of the south and the fragmentation of the south. that is one of the story lines. >> on that note, we will break until precisely 11:30 when you will all be back and sitting down, not just back in the building. the question and answer session will commence. if you have questions, you have ways to offer them. we will take our second break. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> here are some of our featured programs this weekend. on book tv, fox news contributor kicked in powers -- kirsten powers says liberals are now against tolerance and free speech. michael morel on the failures and successes of the agency's war on terror. and on american history tv tonight at 9:15, the strategy behind president nixon's supreme court appointments. sunday night at 6:00 am a we

visit the national museum of american history to view the newly restored murals from tele daladega college. get the complete schedule at c-span.org. >> each week, american history tv's real america brings archival films that tell the story of the 20th century. >> 43 65 days a year -- for 365 days a year, these are the men that serve the city of detroit working together as a team for the protection of the lives and property of people. this is the story behind these men and the organization that produces them. perhaps the most important part of the story is