my boss is the chairman of the museum's board. 's foundingayers chairman of the american civil war museum's board and the library of virginia. he has become the face of the history and of the civil war sesquicentennial here in richmond. while serving as a president of richmond, and at the same time, serving as the head of the future of richmond's past. he retired from the university of richmond last year and is now the professor of humanities and president emeritus at the university. before his pioneering work with the shadow project at uva, and his studies of the civil war. in virginiaounty

and in pennsylvania, he was known as a civil war scholar. his first book is about crime and punishment in the 19th century south. "life afterk, reconstruction," was a finalist for the pulitzer prize. that makes him the ideal speaker to set the stage or the symposium, with his talk on reckoning with reconstruction, on its sesquicentennial. ladies and government, let me introduce ed ayers. [applause] ed: good morning everybody. great to see you. i will be honest, i came in from california, two weeks, which is just long enough to become acclimated with the west coast. i am ignoring the fact that i got in at 2:30.

that is muchow much i care about you. people know some things about reconstruction, many of them are partially true. i found that many audiences, even those who come to a talk on some facet of the american civil war as well as those who are freshmen in college, readily admit they do not have the full story of reconstruction fully nailed. here is what i think the common stock of knowledge looks like. if you know this to your in the red zone, the bonus, way ahead of things. reconstruction following the civil war, apparently lasted 12 years. and that is when volume one of d,s. history textbooks en and volume two begins. i sometimes think reconstruction happened over the winter break. [laughter] it was a tragedy that abraham lincoln was assassinated, in

part because andrew johnson was just terrible. you know that. peopleow that black briefly held political power, a fact that used to be considered terrible by white americans. but now considered a very long fo foreshadowing of the present progress. people know the ku klux klan arose during reconstruction, consider good by many white americans, but now obviously bad. they know particulars, the promise of 40 acres and a mule was made and then rescinded. and that the 14th and 15th amendments appear at some point in the process. people sometimes know that the black codes try to erase as much of the gains of emancipation as much as possible. in it was a corrupt bargain 1877. they know that southern history pretty much stopped after

reconstruction, except for a few episodes until the 1960's -- for the textbooks to give another chapter about the south being poor and nothing much really happening. i wrotethe 600 pages about it. [laughter] the cast of characters has remained much the same throughout several generations now. constantly revisions changes the role of heroes and villains. reconstruction used to be considered a failure because it happened at all. and now, it is considered a failure because it did not go far enough. we have and our minds, no matter what we think, the same pictures that came from wene with the wind," which tell the reconstruction story from the privilege of a once privileged white woman, who have to make dresses out of the curtains in her house.

i think that is what people know about reconstruction. and i say that, just having given lots of talks about it, and that is ok. i think that what people suggest is kind of depressing, people believe. familiar dates of reconstruction suggest a bounded period with a clear beginning and end. but the story between that does not have many elements of a story. lincoln is assassinated, the storyline gets tangled. it starts going and lots of different directions at the same time. the main characters come and go pretty quickly. as for dramatic cameos, even andrew johnson fades away. remain,cal republicans and most people have a hard time attaching a face or name to who they were. even though tommy lee jones was its face as thaddeus stevens, giving them away to remember at

least one radical republican. most people would be hard-pressed to name any of the african-american officeholders that we know emerged during reconstruction. or the white officeholders who replaced them. now this lack of a narrative arc is one reason i think people do not even think they know anything about reconstruction. there is no simple framework of to sort that people are used making sense of the civil war with, even if they imagine that gettysburg was just conveniently -- happening to be in the middle. and is what people imagine, they have at least that. there is no sense of the progress and the geography, of sherman's march. which seems to be happening everywhere. there seems to be largely chaos, different shades for different southern states, each one following its own chronology. somehow, it involves fundamental changes in yet lasted two years

in some places, 12 and others. i just give up. it is to commentator. o complicated. [applause] it is a large, amorphous topic. it is tempting to push the dates and boundaries ever farther out. some historians see the battles beginning in effect with the founding of the nation, when the compromises on slavery built this problem into the country to begin with. some people say that the struggles of reconstruction have not yet ended. that we are still playing out the fundamental decisions that had to be fought over then. some see it as an episode in a global struggle over slavery. and its aftermath, struck by how much other places confronted the end of slavery. and all those perspectives have a lot to teach us. this is what a lot of new scholarship is doing, expanding

the borders and boundaries of reconstruction. but as your first beaker this morning, i feel a certain responsibility to grab things, to bring some clarity to the conversation over the rest of the day, so they make more sense. i have to admit i follow the instructions that they gave me more carefully last night. this, ind a draft of which i sort of sacrifice a lot of my time to give an overview of the story of reconstruction. and i woke up at some point in the night, said, you know, do not do that. let us try a different strategy. this is a strategy that seems so good to me. when it was 2:30 in the morning, my time. i want to focus on where we might first see what we now know as reconstruction taking form. with the issues of slavery then, of african-american rights, of a reintegration of the southern states into the union, of the redefinition of the fundamental

law of the land, of throle of partisan politics, and of the centrality of violence. john gave our work the title "the road from appomattox." that is a good title when you are trying to capture the attention of people interested in the civil war, but you are not exactly sure they are interested in reconstruction. the metaphorical road is somewhat misleading in this case. rather than a road with a clear direction and some signs along the way, in that the decades following the rupture in u.s. history could better be thought of as the intersection of many roads. intersecting at unpredictable angles and with no traffic controls. the catch is that we have to map them all if we hope to get across this piece of history in one piece. here is my point this morning.

i think we see the first convergence of the roads that will become reconstruction in the summer of 1864. especially august, 1864. that is a strangely specific date, i realize, so let me see if i can make the case for you. at the beginning of the summer of 1864, no president of the united states had won a second term since andrew jackson. isn't that amazing? that is a bunch in between, and it is not clear that abraham lincoln was going to be the first one. more than 30 years since you had someone succeed themselves, nothing can be taken for granted. at the convention in june of the republican party, they quickly renominated abraham lincoln, make some other important changes. they placed governor andrew johnson of tennessee as the vice president of candidate. now johnson was a hero to

republicans. the only senator from the south who had stayed loyal to the u.s. at the time of secession. afterwards, johnson served as governor of tennessee and the federally occupied state. demonstrating a successful path towards reunification, or trying to. in that role, he tharole, he fat bitterness and violent threats, they never back down from it. r fromlf-taught taylo tennessee, or they talk like this, andrew johnson seems the very embodiment of what the republican party of the future needed to be, a vehicle for the reunification of the nation on the principles won by the war. wonder, how did andrew johnson, if he was so terrible, get on this date in the first place? because he was seen as a crucial part in what would follow the war. the signal to forward-looking

postures, and to win over voters skeptical of the rhetoric, the party changed its name -- to the national union party. now that move was both audacious and cautious. the party was claiming itself to be the home of all truly loyal men. it was a national party, we are the union party. you should not be voting at all. renaming also was a way to make the purposes of the party more palatable to voters who had come to identify the republicans with a single-minded dedication to defeating and punishing the slaveholders of the south. as with andrew johnson's nomination, the leaders of the national union party wanted to signal that they were primarily concerned with putting the united states back together. this time, on a firmer foundation of universal freedom. the party would be so strong,

and so inclusive, that it would not be a party at all. but a reflection of the highest ideals of the united states. they deny the legitimacy of partisan conflict in the middle of the nation's greatest crisis. the national union party had numerous advantages. the united states army dwarfed any previous manifestation of federal power, patronage, and communication. with over half a million voting men gathered in the army, the party in power the purpose of the nation with the purposes of the party. soldiers receive a steady stream of pamphlets and copies of the weekly,ration's distributed by the national post office. victories on the battlefield and victories for the nation came victories for the party. this is the same system.

the democrats hated this. the democrats sneered at the new party. the union party convention was no convention at all, they said, merely a re-coronation of king abraham. and reaching into the bag, the democrats characterized lincoln -- this might be something you want to remember this election season -- that this is what people said about abraham lincoln. he is totally unfit for the position he holds. he is weak, untamable, sagaciousg, without forecast of the future. his record seemed clear, these are quotes by the way, just to be clear. through his mismanagement "during three years of bloody civil war, the resources of the country have been wasted, thousands of lives have been uselessly sacrificed, and millions of treasures squandered, leaving the prospect

of peace and restored union as distant now as at the beginning." idealsm living up to the of pure patriotism, which is how they betrayed themselves, the democrat said. said the bold the bad men around him, in their hands, he is a mere pulled the kerry of their wicked designs. this is the middle of the greatest crisis the u.s. has ever faced, and you see everybody just grabbing hands, let us work together. charge wasts' key that lincoln and his party, whatever they call themselves, had prosecuted the war from the noble object from which it commenced, to restore the union to the form created in the constitution. noble partisan bars

politics." this is a conflict after three years of bloody war, as late as 1864. this is how unresolved things are. the democrats did all within their power to generate party feeling and spirit and devotion. there have probably never been an election in which people were more energized, went to more talks and parades. the republican party denied the legitimacy of party politics during wartime. they said, look, this is as close to treason as you can get. they are mobilizing to limit the outcome of this war. the north needed to be unified, and instead, the democrats are bringing division. the democrat said, how could you be any more partisan than you are, you republicans? you deployed every part of the partisan machinery the great prophets and advantage -- great

profits and advantage. the nickname they had was the "shoddy ones." and pocketing the money. that is how the democrats said, you better just hypocrites. off of making a mint this, politically and materially, and saying it is legitimately wrong for us to challenge you. wartime presented unprecedented opportunities for patronage. they boasted, even as the democrats saw purpose in the gettysburg address, and every action of congress. concerned, watched as the effects of the war in the summer of 1864, wore on the newly named party. with sacrifice, not far from here, without attaining

any victories after that convention. and as the election approaches, struggles from sherman outside of atlanta with no supplies or support. lincoln'sfollowed distress, saying the president was greatly depressed. but lincoln was human, as are all men, but only in degree. it was late august that lincoln wrote a memo, asking all of the members of his cabinet to sign without reading it, saying that we are not going to win. and when we do, i will support the man who is. in late august of 1864, after all of the supposed attorney points of the civil war had come and gone, everything still hangs in the balance. late august, 1864. thought, evenent

at this time, about what it would cost to actually happen say the slaveholders to end the war. he told the confidant that he was thinking about paying $400 million to do this. here is his calculation. million anding $400 day to fight the war, he said. and there is no prospect of the war ending the next 100 days. away, and never presented it. but to give you some sense of what he is thinking in august of 1864. the northmocrats of remained surprisingly strong for a party that have been branded as traitors and out of national years.for four newspapers in every counties in the north show strength throughout the north, throughout. they held about 45% of northern voters. they published tracts and kept powerful speakers in the field.

for people who might waver. the vote by soldiers in the field could well prove critical. the republicans had clear advantages in this front. the sort of men likely to vote republican, young and protestant and anglo-saxon, were heavily represented in the army. and the risk and sacrifice demanded by military service bound the soldiers together, and to their officers, as well as to the nation's commander-in-chief. by 1864, the republicans enjoyed clear ascendancy. prominent generals and lincoln's cabinet, and few democratic generals remain. at home, the relentless criticism of the war effort often sounded the soldiers reading the papers in the trenches outside petersburg or in the camps outside atlanta,

like criticism of them. mny can't you beat these da rebels? what is wrong with us? why can't we strike peace? many lifelong democrats they would better remain quiet around the campfire, and they would write letters to sympathetic family members back home. you could see how they were voting, and some chose not to vote at all. while others decided that they would vote for lincoln, the national union party, in the selection. to a close, war think about what they would do next time. now the democrats have not held their nominating dimension through all of this, until late august. just as the military situation and the national row had reached the lowest point, probably in

the entire war. the democrat are heading off to theiro feeling good about odds. they were emboldened. they were divided between the war and peace democrats. the latter calling for a cessation of hostilities in the negotiation of peace, acknowledging the confederacy's independence. the convention named george mcclellan for president. somebody we have also learned was terrible. but he had been removed from atmand by president lincoln, 37 years old, he would have been the youngest president we h ever had. very appealing, very popular. became theellan nominee. the convention also produced a platform that declared that justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for cessation of hostilities. think how weirdnesses. having the man that, just a few

is now in a party that calls for abandoning the war, despite popularity. confronted toly problems. immediately, after declaring the cameailurethe word from sherman that atlanta is ours. democratic delegates returned home. one said they found every center of population illuminated at night and full of waving flags by day. as the people put hope back on them, the failure of the war, and the compromise will rebellion. sayrally, right after they the words of failure, and it is very obvious that it is, atlanta falls to sherman. second, george mcclellan

accepted the nomination, but rejected the peace plan. and he did so with certain language. gallantt look at my comrades who have survived so many bloody battles and tell them that their labors and the sacrifices of so many of our slain brethren have been in vain, that we have abandoned that union for which we have so often imperiled our lives." he said americans would hail with unbounded joy, based on the constitution. "no peace can be permanent, without union." specificallys rejected the platform of the party that nominated him. in a letter that everyone read, he said, by the views of the convention. ok, no they are not. a campaignocrats had with a candidate who rejected the platform for which he had been nominated, but did so

without frankly acknowledging that fact. while sherman's victory in a prominent role, virginia remained a problem. the fact was that the largest united states army, under its most celebrity general, had not destroyed the largest confederate general under its most celebrated general. there is that fact. in agrant and lee locked stalemate, the fighting in the shenandoah valley became ever more important. for most of the north, georgia was a long way away. but the valley of virginia ran directly to the capital in washington, d.c. and only months before, jubal early had threatened washington. valley, theyt same had come into the home of the head of the republican party in the state of pennsylvania, one of the most important parties, and burn the farm in the town in

which he lived to the ground. suggesting that the u.s. army is not fully in control of the situation in the summer of 1864. early iny over jubal september and october were especially important. in the valley, a place of humiliation for one union general after another as late as 1864, it had suddenly become the scene of immediate, unqualified, repeated, and glorious victory. as the union army went wheeling through winchester, and as sheridan made the final ride, not nearly as long as the famous : set but still pretty far, coming to winchester to win the victory. the victory in the valley provided something else that many people in the north long the landdestruction of which had sustained the army for so long. thehs before the march,

systematic construction of barnes, mills, and fields, the burning of the valley democrat a new resolve of what would be involved in actually establishing dominion over the delegate south. and a new willingness to undermine the material and spiritual resources of confederate civilians. , hisas important,'s theory marked a win over time of the election, all kinds of and down the valley. extra partisan violence, by men not in uniform, could play a very important role in whatever else was to happen. sheridan defeats the guerrillas, burns parts of the valley. here is what you need to remember.

sherman's burning cannot begin until after. there is a referendum on union policy, and it is about the shenandoah valley and the election of 1864. not about georgia. it istching all of this, hard to imagine just how fast this is all coming. in october, president lincoln cap related the likely votes in the electoral college that would determine the presidency. recovering that office in the that, he came out saying the winner of the election would probably need 116 votes to be elected. his calculations showed he had about 120, and that mcclellan had about 114. wo large states, new york or pennsylvania, could change everything. he knew that if the voters voted in 1864 as they had in the state elections of 1862, that he would

lose 127-86. it was not that long before, and i you have grant locked in stalemate outside richmond. lincoln did not merely worry about winning the election, because he was looking ahead already. he knew that he needed a moral victory for the enormously important work that lay ahead. so to achieve that victory, he inded the two largest states the union -- new york and pennsylvania. and those were too close to call before the election. the election of 1864 was actually two, simultaneously, the home and the army vote. both democrats and republicans had great hopes and anxieties for the soldier vote. 17 northern states, out of 22 in the union, would allow absentee

ballots from the field in 1864. george mcclellan was a soldier's soldier. and he encouraged other soldiers to support them. mcclellan also hurt him many soldiers found any appropriate that inappropriate for general to run against a commander-in-chief that he served. alienated many soldiers who saw their only capitulation. the democratic platform expressed only sympathy for the soldiers, as if they had been duped. not admiration and gratitude. soldiers knew that the democrats in one state after another had voted to deny them the right to vote in the absentee ballot. they were only temporary soldiers in any case. stilleers with loyalty firmly attached to the localities and states. republicans were confident they would win a majority of the army

vote. they did not know if it would be enough to overcome close home votes in pennsylvania and new york. furtherone reason they thousands of soldiers to go back home to make sure that the home vote was better. after the mother campaigning building on the years of constantly shifting sands of public opinion the votes came in. maybe can show the map i have now. i can. i love this. this is the election of 1864. i think it is amazing. lincoln would win by a 411,000 margin over mcclellan. elect for college -- the electoral college he would win when by 212 to 21. he we carry new jersey, kentucky and delaware.

of alltuc in control but one governor office and the state legislature, given them the power to name united states senators and tighten grip on congress. you look at most histories of the civil war, they skate right over the complications of this endpoint to that huge victory is indication that the white north is fully in support of everything the republicans are doing. there are things for us to remember. 80,000 well-placed votes would've thrown the election to mcclellan. over 4,000 votes out of million. despite all the advantages they enjoyed, close to half of american voters voted against abraham lincoln and the most important election and the nation's history. he received the same share of votes he received in 1860. 55.

as we have seen over the last eight years,early half the population that did not win does not just fall into line. it does not just say, what were we thinking? yes, we agree with what you are doing. it matters a great deal for all the other things we will be talking europe -- about the rest of the day. all these blue areas, coast-to-coast, upper north and lower north, border south, the state and small voted for the democrats when abraham lincoln needed them. this is not just leftovers. this is after all the cards are on the table and they know what is coming. nearly half of white northern men will not support abraham lincoln. one thing to notice as we think about election season coming up, the electoral college did what it is supposed to do. victories inginal

one county after another, a lot of those red counties could of been blues, it comes down to some counties. 100, 200, 300 voters. and in the states themselves were close, but the electoral college greets a mandate whether or not they won before. you may have to people support him or him lincoln! he won 212 electoral votes. it's the case of the two-party system helped channel all of this. let's imagine -- the constitution channeled all of this. it said it would be an election then and only then. a parliamentary system, the opposition system -- could have mobilized in july or august of 1864 and called for an election in which republicans might not have one. as it was, the election in

november occurred at a time of these victories have come to pass. think about that. all these things in the two-party system which today seems like create so much trouble actually channeled this so they were only two choices and give a clear mandate to president lincoln. think about all the things that could have happened. what if the democrats met at a different time? what if they had not made his boneheaded moves? what if the military victories of georgia and virginia came weeks after they did? what if they had not been able to enfranchise the soldiers in the field? all those things could've happened as late as the summer, and now the fall of 1864. if we are going to talk about a turning point in the war, it is not until now. it is not until nearly the end

and it is this election field by the military turning points of atlanta and the shenandoah valley that brings about. it's only after this it is certain that slavery and the confederacy would be driven to an end. ist is important to recall how close the united states came to that. after this election think about how quickly the other pieces came into play. for them seven months after this election here is what you have. the passage of the 13th amendment in january after this election in november. field orders 15 disturbing went to the free people. 40 acres and a mule in south carolina in january. lincoln's second inaugural address in march. the freedmen's bureau in march. lincoln's final speech and assassination in april. johnson's assumption of the

presidency in april. african-american mobilization, which is been taking place in places it occupied, accelerated as well. this sequence of events, political, partisan, military, and on the ground in the south defined the issues and major protagonists reconstruction before appomattox. that is not to say appomattox did not matter. it is to say that reconstruction did not flow directly from the emancipation proclamation, as you will see some generalizations arguing, or the gettysburg address as we haven't talked to believe. more shermans march. -- or shermans march. it took the shape of the compliments of the political and military and social and economic in the summer and fall of 1864. the injury of reconstruction events around the election of

1864 allowed us to address some old questions in new ways. anyone who is ever spoken about the civil war in public is her the question, what would lincoln have done about reconstruction? behind that question lies others. -- where he doomed to have the painful reconstruction we endorse? where he destined to abandon the enslaved people at the moment of freedom? that thedained confederates would fight back with every weapon at their disposal? with a white south of been more unified and generous? could we have been a stronger and better nation if abraham lincoln had seen us through the critical years following the war? these are good questions, enduring questions. they are especially compelling questions as we enter the anniversary.years of reconstruction i think the questions about lincoln and the possible course of reconstruction bear particular burden partly as a result of the events i just described.

lincoln, a master of light which and eloquence, said relatively little about what he planned to do with the war ended. he had good reasons for his reticence. he had to win the war before he could know what to follow. he only had about six months from the time he became clear that the united states would win , and until he was assassinated. he had only two days after lee's surrender to speak on the subject. second, the politics of the situation could not even more complicated. nearly half of white northern voters risk death refused to support lincoln. lincolnmocrats despite and would not support whatever he supported. large numbers within his own party from the left and the right challenged any plan he put forward. third, the lincoln -- the people that in confederates and sacrificed lives, slavery, pride, independence, would

resist any eort to remake their society. and finally the nation had to find it would make people who have been held in perpetual bondage their entire lives for the fruits of their labors deprived for them for all those years, haven't they determine their own political fate? and their civic fate? these problems stood before anyone who would lead the nation in 1865, even abraham lincoln. the challenges were not just making. todid all anyone could have minimize the obstacles of reunification and the integration of african-americans into the national politic. that goal had shaved all he had done throughout the war. often -- goals were people were puzzled. happy prosecute this war and still speech in such terms of bringing the former confederate states back in? he was trying to restore the union.

how did he talk like that and still talk of ending slavery? that heincoln's genius was able to hold both those ideas together. it also made it very hard to be abraham lincoln. worked to pass the 13th amendment even during wartime since a legal foundations for the end of slavery would be in place when the war ended. the emancipation proclamation had been a war measure. he knew, and this is interesting about the lincoln movie, it focused on that struggle. and i think wisely. this is what was able to redeem so much of have been won in the war. the ram of a former democrat. 1864 --rn union nest in unionist in 1864. andrew johnson, with whom he had had one conversation, maybe the last conversation he had for his

final speech or he went to the theater. johnson thought he was doing with the signals of the national union party pointed towards. slavery is over. let's put the country back together and build a national republican party. white southerners behave differently under lincoln? with lincoln have behaved differently than johnson? lincoln misjudged the southern white majority every step of the war. he could not believe that people who love the united states did not still really love it even know they had been tricked into rebelling. he kept thinking give them a chance. he had a 10% plan. their true selves are come forward. lincoln appeared to believe that after the war. give them a chance and they will prove their true love for the founding would come forward. scholars study all this a great deal.

they looked at the course of the war under lincoln to see what you might even thinking. we had to look hard because he just did not show all his cards. generally in lincoln's last speech given only two days after appomattox and devoted to the challenges of reconstruction in louisiana, lewis maser has an interesting new book called "lincoln's last speech." -- read theeech last speech and it is not classic lincoln. "practical --rase here is what he talks about. " proper practical relations" is mentioned six times. is study directly "better injures -- that are angels of our nature." lincoln is thinking about this in his last speech. his final sentence that he gave at a public speaker was "in the

present situation it may be my duty to make some new announcement to the people of the south. i'm considering and shall not fail to act to satisfy the action will be proper." you cannot have a more open ended statement about what history construction -- about what reconstruction might've been under abraham lincoln. that same speech would make an allusion to the possibility that some intelligent black veterans might be able to vote. that is when john wilkes booth determined that lincoln must die now before you have black suffrage. never mind is how volatile these things are. the proper, practical relations the same time he says the words that trigger the assassination that many had dreaded for so long. book study aller of this and they say we cannot know. we know he was a better

politician and more portly had the entire party behind him the way johnson never did. there is no indication whatsoever that lincoln had ever thought about the fundamental changes of land confiscation and distribution that would make it possible for the free people to build new lines. ves.i we lost that moment. the whole nation was trying to figure out when the largest and most powerful slave society of the modern world collapses. with the largest single concentration of capital in the united states is gone. one 4 billion people have nothing but the shirts -- 4 million people with nothing but the shirts on their backs have to make the live for themselves. what can be more challenging than that and what to be more important than that? the challenges confronting anyone who understands all these years is that it was in fact

reconstruction. it was the result of generation after generation of fighting over what would follow slavery. at the same time there is a sudden twist of events that steer what might seem an inevitable process at the end of american slavery in the reunification and the forms nobody could have foreseen. you have to understand both of those things. the big patterns and the particularities in which history actually happens. long and of slavery is legitimate emphasizes the long tradition of existence without which this would not have happened, or the crash of events that ended slavery far more rapidly than anyone could have dared imagine. betweenwhat the events august 1864 and april 1865 remind us. the end of slavery did not really happen as a product of inevitability or circumstance or

accident or cynical policy, but the result of consistent principled dangerous efforts on the parts of relatively few people. first mainly black and marginalized people, then steadily embracing more white and powerful people in the context of war. the challenge to our understanding counts are culmination of this struggle ultimately dependent on all the people in blue. on the millions of voters who were never persuaded that this should be the purpose of the war. that unwilling or agnostic or noncommittal people in the united states army and even in the republican party created a space in which these things could happen. they did not have a unified north behind them and they did have a unified white south opposed to them.

so i hope i have lived up to john's order to set the stage. if not telling you all the things that happened good help us realize what was at stake. why these of the most important years in american history. why the roots reach the back into the civil war and very concrete ways. why to understand the civil war you have to understand reconstruction. and do understand reconstruction he have to understand the american civil war. i believe we're supposed to take questions. is that correct? >> remind people to use the microphones. mike --s: please your user microphones for c-span and they are coming to you. [applause] mr. ayers: is always good to get the applause for the questions. >> excellent talk is always. we always enjoy your observations. i have two questions.

i'm trying to figure which one would ask. one of the things we often hear is that it was the victory at atlanta that solidified the momentum for reelection and that sheraton's victories of the icing on the cake that helps -- it was invented that was the turning point. you suggest that while atlanta was kind of a shock to the system for the northern war effort, it was the victories in the valley that solidified the support and the eventual reelection. is that a fair assessment argue even drop as distinctions? mr. ayers: you called me out on that. [laughter] here is the thing. i think it's fair to say you have crystallized common belief about this. that it was atlanta. it doesn't happens i'm writing a book about the shenandoah valley.

i'm sure they cannot of possibly affected -- all that said. i do believe we are probably underestimating the role that sheridan's victories, right on the cusp of election, right on the borders of what is the most important states, and right outside of washington dc i think the latching onto sherman's victory, which i'm not diminishing, when you get to this part of the story we sort of see the end of the work coming and we start rushing along. both the election and its outcome and the war itself. we forget how many men are still left to die. how many battles are to be fought. and how large the civil war was and how many consequences it had. i don't know if it's revisionism. i'm just calling attention to the fact you think about the particularities of the election. if you are in that moment and reading the newspapers and you

have the most popular pawn to come out of the american civil war, shermans ride comes at a week before the election and it's all across the north, and the third most popular picture of the civil war, sheridan's ride to winchester suggests it has a con death consequences. -- it had a consequence. there is a vote tonight in south carolina. we had just the last three days important things happen in the news that we can see before our eyes. i think if you think about proximity and time and perception and self-interest, the shenandoah valley is a lot more important than we have been led to believe. yes? the microphone is coming to you. always graphics illuminate and in my case almost

always confuse. [laughter] mr. ayers: just for a moment. the residents of counties in the newly admitted state of west virginia have the opportunity to cast votes in the 18 six before election? i don't see any red or blue counties in west virginia. dr. ayers: who knows? anybody know? get off my back jack. i don't know. it is my believe they did and i also believe nevada should be on here as well. -- one way tothe look at this is to look at the maps i hate which are just electoral college. it suggests we live in red or blue states. that we are a certain kind of people.

accurate -- you see it has west virginia. it might be we don't have county level data. are u.s. confused? -- are you less confused? you draw attention to the fact that there are states that are voting for the first time which is another advantage the republicans have. all the situations actually play to the advantage of the republicans. they had not only the army, but also new states formed. ok? another question? yes. >> writing a book about the shenandoah valley and the activities there, will you address in that book or today the importance of david hunter's action at the battle of piedmont? 's subsequent move of the valley and the diverse police forces from around richmond? dr. ayers: i will. >> to sheridan's --

dr. ayers: i will do both right now. a fascinating thing in my forthcoming book. [laughter] honesty, itn all has been fascinating to study the military events in the valley all the way from the dead 1864, and not only hundred before him siegel and after him sheridan, and watching breckenridge. i did a pilgrimage to the battle of piedmont battlefield. my wife, bless her heart, agreed to go with me. we went over there and end up having to use latitude and longitude to find the one marker that's about the size of this lecture and with no place to pull off. --tood there until there i told her honey, you won't believe the thousands of men that fought here. it i seem plays an enormous role

in the outcome of the war. i also write about the different ways of violence. were bedeviling hunter and siegel and sheridan. it only makes sense of use and how much they made it impossible in hunter's own mind for him to build on the victory there and go take lynchburg, which could very easily have brought the war to an end months earlier. if you cut off saw bill and the virginia center railroad and the tennessee railroad, lee will be in serious trouble. yes, i would have to say trying to put all the pieces together i never more convinced that the centrality of the valley and the outcome of the entire war. i learned a lot from mark how important it was not to just understand what is happening right around here, as important as that is, plenty

when it's ineffective at army second swing back and forth between the valley and here. a free copy of your book when it comes out next year. is a time for one more question? there was the microphone. i know you don't want to talk of the subject too much. dr. ayers: that is all the time we have for today. [laughter] >> i had a question of reconstruction for you. i'm just kind of trying to figure this out. when they determine how many federal troops are going in each state, that they base it on the population of that state or is it generally assigned somebody troops the specific state in the south? had in the process work? dr. ayers: you are right. any question that involves knowledge i usually like to avoid. let me tell you something else that i will put in place of knowledge. there is a new map out that shows, it was made by greg downs that you can find online, it

shows the location of all the military presence across the south. which is much larger than we had realized. this is a constantly shifting calculation you are making. they have to invent a whole idea of military districts. i will end with this observation which does not answer your question. i just want to be honest with you. >> thank you. people generally don't realize that reconstruction is in two phases. they don't realize there are two years before what we think of as reconstruction by which we actually mean military reconstruction comes to pass. in between its basically experimentation to see how many troops is a going to take to protect the freedmen's bureau. are delighted to put into place and actually sustain the federal presence there long enough for the south to quit fighting back in riot and rebellions and

lynchings and to come back in? the military presence is not really a left over for the war, but a reinsertion. at the same time they are fighting the american indians in the west. we will pretend if you triangulate all the different things i just told you that it answers your question somewhere in the middle. i thought we were done but there is one more. >> on what to pull rank and ask a simple question. book onld recommend one reconstruction, what would it be? dr. ayers: well, there is only one answer is that really. eric foners classic from 1988. that was a long time ago. like dog years in historian years. the fact we've not been able to -- and we all went to constantly revised those that came before us.

is that is held up remarkably well. it's very long. there is a short history of reconstruction if you want to read that. i guess i have been struck and reviewed several new books of late. i thought this book by lewis maser helped me see things i had not seen before. we are rediscovering every single aspect of things i talked about today, including the military presence in the lives of african americans, from republicans are doing and what the democrats were thinking. is a remarkable -- it is a remarkable fertile period. i would start with the one account that recalibrated are thinking that the african-american struggle for true american citizenship at the center of the story. when all these other things come and go that a silly endearing story. when all the neck and nations of the republicans and democrats pass, when all the outbreaks of the ku klux klan, and go -- come

and go, were able to live up to the founding spirit of this country, of a nation that is built on the freedom and rights of citizenship of everybody. that is what i think about beamerican history tv will live from the ford theater in washington, d.c., where john wilkes booth shot abraham in 1865.o and authors will discuss his views on emancipation and reconstruction, neat