Transcripts For CSPAN3 The Civil War 20160326

Military policy towards Southern Civilians. After he wrote that book, i first met him. He came to the chicago civil war roundtable, where i was a member, and talked about the book. He maintains the war historians website, focusing on military history and National Security affairs, winning the 2015 cleopatra award for the best individual blog, for his wonderfully titled blog then out of the stone age. In other words, grimsley is an awardwinning historian in three media. His books ono civil war topics which are listed in your program, mark has written an taught more generally on military history. An sae wrote for his coedited book, civilians in the path of war, is his talk today. Im sured redskins, you can get your answer answer by dr. Grimsley. Military conduct, a comparative perspective. He is no stranger to the museum programs. He spoke in this auditorium, as a matter of fact, 12 years ago as a part of the evening series lectures on hard war. We are very pleased to welcome back to the stage dr. Mark grimsley. [applause] dr. Grimsely a pleasure to be here this afternoon. And im looking forward to talking with you. Oh good, we have this up on the screen. Will be talking today about the civil war. And about the final wars against native americans. And yet, i am neither a civil war historian nor a historian of the military. Donte way in which, worry i still know a lot about the civil war [laughter] identify as a military historian. And the way i actually came to the subject of my first book, which i will be talking about some today, actually was by way of the interest in moral judgment in war. The kind of moral judgments that we often make in wartime. And as an historian, the kind of judgments that we do make. And that was the genesis of the interesting ine the moral judgments that Union Officers and soldiers made towards Southern Civilians in the past of war during the American Civil War. So that is where that came from. Having written that book, i have formed an apparently careerlong association with william t sherman. People zynga think i am an expert on sherman, as well. And i have come to learn a fair amount about sherman, two, mostly in selfdefense. [laughter] but i can to you that times are changing regard to sherman. And as with many things. 2014, anmmer of Organization Called public asking fora poll, the opinions on william t. Sherman. You might imagine they would have opinions on the subject, given his famous urban renewal project. [applause] [laughter] in 1864. 56 had no opinion in georgia. 63 reported that y disliked reality tv star honey booboo. [laughter] apparently, the image of sherman have shifted over time. Some of it interests me over the past year or so, it is taking seriously the concepts of the American Civil War as an american iliad. , itby that, i mean to say is an episode in American History that we have certain stories that we tell ourselves that come out of the war, the kind of have a mythic resonance for us. En the same way there ar the same in homer. What it tells us about being a human being, and i think the people that are interested in the American Civil War often approach it as a kind of american iliad. And i will give you an example of this. I started doing a column for civil war magazine called the american illiad. One of my first was on the relationship between american n and maccallum. Culture,sed into our to such an extent that during the iraq war. Over 100here were references to the lincoln and maccallum relationship, usually in the course of condemning a general that was not doing very well. Or extolling a general who was doing well, and so on. Well, in my column, i talked about this relationship that they had, very much an american illiad term. Lincoln is a great guy, mccollum is a jerk. What will he do when a figure they figure that out . I said maccallum is not that bad a general. That is all i said. He does not deserve the excoriation that he gets. That one paragraph got many numbers of letters to the editor, and i got one myself from aggrieved readers, each of pages,an several singlespaced. [laughter] explaining to me how he was the worst general in the civil war. Not one of the warsaw the absolute worst. I willa new column that be doing explaining why we hate him that much. [laughter] but we can go to my topic today, and one of the things i was thinking about, this american iliad. Does it have it has stories in it. Grant at shiloh. During the darkest moments of the surge, he told his staff on several occasions about grants remark on the evening of the battle of shiloh, where sherman comes up to him and says we have had the devils own day. And grant says yes, lick them tomorrow. Use that to boost his staff. And of course the story of Stonewall Jackson at the first manassas. What kind of tales do we have that touch upon the things were discussing today . Reconstruction and the ugliness of it. I think those things lie largely outside of the american iliad. These are stories that we do not mythic in a mythical or kind of way. The exception to this would be shermans marches. People do know about the raising of the Shenandoah Valley. S was right tor quote the importance. But people know anything about what i call the heart operations of the civil war, it is the march to the sea. Ad we all know that it was march, 220 miles from atlanta to savannah, 60 miles wide. In which the troops destroyed absolutely everything in their path. Folklore is a thriving business in georgia there to explain why, given that this occurred, why the particular in, that so and so lives why that particular town was spared, when every other town was annihilated. Usuallye folklore tales have something to do with sherman had an old girlfriend in town, maybe. He was a mason. And someone gave the masonic sign of distress. So, there is this kind of american iliad element to his march. Theory,idea of this this is something that i talk about, largely debunking. Do so, what i would like to is to begin with two mornings, three years apart. The first is a mild winter day in coastal south carolina, on the flat title plane of the savanna river. The soldiers have entered the Little Village of barnwell. Officially, the orders are to pass through the town and seize and destroy only certain classes of public property. In brutal fact, they believe that the Commanding Officer wants them to destroy everything in south carolina, a state that nurtured and created the carnage of the civil war. That has consumed the lives of them in their comrades for years. And so, Union Soldiers as they enter barnwell, south carolina, they set fire to the town. Public building for residences, then they leave. A town that would be properly rechristened burnwell. Civilians are aghast, in shock. That is the first point. The second morning is a chill, autumn dawn in the former indian territory of oklahoma. Bluecoated soldiers have surrounded a nameless village on the river. Officially, the orders are to surround and capture a party of indian raiders that have attacked white settlements in the region. And also, to wreck everything in their path. They open fire, the blue coats open fire. Ell, this is defended. The inhabitants have been taken by surprise. And within minutes, it is overrun. While covering for screens against a possible counterattack theyher vicinity indians, systematically level the lodges, shooting 900 ponies in the most of the giving possessions to the flames. Afterward, there are no indians left behind in the village to bemoan the attack. All have been made prisoners and escorted into captivity. And over 100 of them, mostly old men, women, and children, are dead. Now, it is commonly agreed that 19th Century America had two experiences with total war. The first against the southern confederacy, the second against the Western Plains indians. Other historians have noticed similarities in the methods employed, particular emphasis on the destruction of supplies and attacks on noncombatants. Such commonalities imply that however potent racial views may have been in White America overall towards native americans, the final conquest was not central with race. Aen francis jennings, distinguished historian highly critical of White Americans to make this point. He wrote on sherman that a photograph in atlanta will reveal his style of war. Why should anyone expect them to be more merciful to alien indians that the people of his own kind . Sherman and his counterparts in the union army did behave with considerably more mercy towards southern whites than White America showed with the final wars with native americans. What happened in barnwell and 8065 laid at the extreme end. Int happened along the river november 1868, on the other hand, was fairly typical of the u. S. Army conduct towards native americans. The difference reflects the culture in race and the latter struggles. The contrast between the wars against the confederacy and the native americans are compelling. And they begin with the basic legal principles by which the two struggles were conducted. The laws and customs of european warfare contain two main strands of thought. One, applicable to wars against another nation, international wars. And one, applicable to insurgency and insurrection, internal wars. Legally, the American Civil War was an insurrection. It was an insurgency. But the way in which the United States conducted that war, de facto, treated the Confederate States of america as if it were a foreign nation. And that meant that the conventions of laws and customs, prisoners of war were taken, surrenders were given and accepted, and so on. Had the United States chosen to adopt the insurgency or the insurrectionary principle instead, everybody who was taken in arms would have been shot. And you know, they were traitors, guilty of treason. They had no rights anyone you to respect. So, the American Civil War than was treated as a de facto contest between nations. And those principles were followed. With regard to the wars against native americans, though, the insurrectionary principle was followed. And what this meant was that it opened up a great deal more for lethal treatment of people who would ordinarily be classified as noncombatants. Now, during the clashes with western indians, u. S. Forces when we discovered it was almost impossible to destroy a native American War Party and open combat. Since they normally avoided battle except under favorable conditions. These small numbers and high mobility made them are to locate, amid the vastness of the west. Accordingly, one of the favorite tactics was to swoop down upon a hostile party, while ensconced in a village. Ideally, at dawn. This tactic privately guaranteed casualties among native american women, children, and the elderly. Two wellknown examples were the already discussed and in whichy 1870, general baker and the calvary killed 173 indians, including 53 women and children. Many of them ill with smallpox. Attack againsthe humanitarians, noting that it was no different than what was practiced in American Civil War. During the war, he said, did anyone hesitate to attack a village because women and children were within the limits . Did we ceased to throw shells into vicksburg or atlanta because women and children were there . This is disingenuous. Hardly any Southern Civilians were killed in this kind of fashion. The bombardment of vicksburg and atlanta produced few civilian casualties. Many of us could name the loan civilians deaths that occurred during the battle of gettysburg. We also know the one woman who died in the battle of the first manassas. So, that is how rare those occasions are. So he is being disingenuous when he says this. Thentrast, the success of Western Village attacks depended on native americans not knowing the enemys approaching. They smirk and atlanta were incidental to operations against the confederate armies defending those cities. The presence was of central importance. Because the greatest opportunities for victory would occur when warriors were forced into position of having to protect the elderly, women, and children. Finally, while the union army could readily discriminate between civilian targets in atlanta, during a village attack, combatants and noncombatants were hopelessly intermingle. The result unpredictably, was a level of noncombatant casualties far higher than anything seen during delivery operations. Sherman was not drawing an appropriate comparison. Rather, he was quoting a morally dubious attack in the mantle of one more easily defensible. This is michael walzer. He is a Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and the author of any number of books. There is one i will recommend to you. It is called just and unjust wars, published in 1977. I read it as a college freshman. It has been through five editions since then. And it is the single most lucid and intelligent study of the ethical aspects of war that i can recommend to you. Walzer talks in his book about the principle of double effect. This is a concept that really goes back before him, back to the scholastics of the middle ages. But he offers a good modern formulation that is relevant to what i am talking about today. Writes, is a, he way of reconciling the absolute prohibition of attacking noncombatants with the legitimate conduct of military activity. Which may unavoidably exposed noncombatants to harm. Condition is that the intention of the actor is good. That is to say, that the actor, the person responsible for attack, specific is naming airily at the acceptable affect the death of the combatant. The evil effect, the injury to noncombatants, nor is it a means to his ends. He seeks to minimize the evil involved, accepting cost to himself. One may complain that during the atlanta bombardment, sherman failed to minimize the risk of causing harm to civilians. But causing harm was neither his objective nor a means to his objective. By contrast, while injury to native american women and children was possibly not the example of custer or baker, the presence of women and children was an important means to ensure the vulnerability of the otherwise elusive native american warriors. According to the principle of double effect, this is morally unacceptable. A soldier must take careful aim at his target, away from nonmilitary targets, he explains. He can shoot only if he has a reasonably clear shot. He can attack only if a direct attack is possible. He can risk incidental death, but he cannot kill civilians simply because he finds them in between. Ethically then, the u. S. Army to attack only if it were prepared to take significant steps to avoid noncombatant casualties. For example, by using forces to surround the village, offering them an opportunity to surrender, and permitting noncombatants to leave the area. And although this conclusion cannot be gained, it is perhaps only fair to point out that the army, which felt chronically shorthanded during the campaign, and that even the surprise attacks were fought with considerable risk. At the battle of the big hull in 1877, theyaugust 9 failed to prevent the escape of most warriors, who found cover and shut down fully a third of the men. But as usual, many of the nez perce were women and children killed in the attack. Civilianhat casualties are hard to establish reliably, but two thirds are estimated to be noncombatants. When i began working on what became the hard hand of war, and i look at the way in which Union Military conduct toward Southern Civilians eve all, you begin with a limited war. An army against an army. And eventually, you see this war expand to something approximating a total war, in which Southern Civilian property, private and public property, was also fair game. And as i traced the trajectory, this, i found out that what really drove it was part political. In the early stages, a consolatory policy was applied because it was thought that this would bring white Southern Civilians back into their former allegiance more easily than other means. And that as matters became more harsh, it was driven by the fact that union armies found it difficult to destroy rebel armies in the field,. And historically, what happens when you are unable to achieve direct military effect, you tend to go after civilians instead. Is a bookst there out there that you should all is a copy of. To it. At book has a moral when you cannot effectively defeat an enemy by purely military means, you go for the civilians. Although it is common to locate the germ of this s horrible policy with civilal sherman, war armies sometimes found it necessary to take supplies from the countryside. And by extension, to deny them to the enemy. Commanders didon the same thing as sherman did. Such methods were Obvious Solutions to obvious military problems. It requires little imagination to realize that if the civil war had never taken place, the military problems of war against the indians would have suggested their own solutions in much the same way. So i think that the idea that the United States officers, you know, learned techniques during the civil war and then apply them to the indians in the postcivil war period, they just thought that would not hunt. Soldiers are practical legal. Thel people. They still would have the same problem with the civil war, and they would assault the problems with the indians and the way they did. Now, the destruction of native american property follows a considerably different pattern from that of the civil war. Andough southern barnes outbuildings might be destroyed, it was relatively uncommon for Union Soldiers to burn private dwellings. But they repeatedly burned entire native american villages. The emphasis in both official order and practice, to leave enough provisions to get by. In the west, the norm was to destroy provisions so thoroughly as to force the native americans to choose between reservation life and starvation. The pattern during the civil war was to distinguish between union secessionist and neutral or passive civilians. In the west on the distinction between the peace and more factions were seldom made. And often gave white soldiers receipts, and afterwards, gave concessions to those who could demonstrate loyalty. No such niceties applied in the contest against the native americans. A mural, Works Progress association mural. Idaho,office in creston, near the site of the bear river massacre. A lot of us have heard of the sand creek massacre, that is in november of 1864. The bear river massacre is on a much larger scale actually. Were talking about an incident ernwhich 250 northwest ane indians were slaughtered, and women were raped in the snow as they lay dying of their wounds. What is going on here what is going on here . Hat is going on at sand creek . Hat were looking at here is racism . Yes. Calling it racism doesnt get us very far. What is going on beneath the surface . What is the significance . I think that what is going on here that is of significance is this. In a contest between White Americans, the American Civil War, there was the entire point of the war really was to restore Political Community. In war the more there is a sense that it is going to be restored, the more likely you are to have what we think of as the laws and customs of war and gestures of mercy. Where there is a sense there can be no Political Community, there can those ming together, are the circumstances under hich you see atrocities. In the American Experience atrocities tend to occur almost overwhelmingly in the context of interracial struggles. So in terms of looking at for example even whats going on in the far west, what you would find is the there is a distinction even between the way that the u. S. Army regulars behave toward native americans and volunteer troops from colorado and california and so forth. The bear river massacre was carried out not by regular u. S. Army troops but rather by first california, a volunteer regiment. The sand creek massacre in november of 1864 was carried out, again, not by regular troops but by the third colorado cavalry, which was enlisted for 100 days only, attacked the black kettle settlement at sand creek in its rst and only engagement, slaughtered men, women, elderly, children, and mutilated women, came back to denver festooned with the genitalia of men and women on their uniforms to receive a eros welcome. Between the ntrast civil war, which was a hard war and the hard war out in the west with native americans. Ill take whatever questions you have. Yes. [applause] how much do you think religious beliefs played into how the rms of soldiers viewed beliefs of the vs. Rn religious beliefs the western native american beliefs . I think that i see what you mean, what youre getting at. I think that it wasnt so much e spiritual practices that whites noticed and objected to. The sense of the indians being savages is what they, you know, picked up on the most. Theres a funny dualism in the ways in which White Americans have regarded native americans historically. Ne of them is to look at native americans as savages and but there is another way, that kind of romanticizes native americans and has kind of a rosie view of spiritual practices of native americans. So you get this kind of dualism alongside. So i would say actually to the extent that the whites paid attention to the spiritual practices of native americans, that they saw that in a kind of favorable sort of way. This is kind of strange, two attitudes so order of exist ide by side. Yeah. Did your research on the native americans involve any of he way that the native americans tribes treated each other in their type of warfare . Was that looked at or considered . Yes. I can talk a little bit about that. You know, its not as though native americans were, you know, just nice people who were just sort of blameless, misunderstood kids. Ou know, their warfare against ne another could be pretty unpleasant. One of the things, for example, that the western indians did was they practiced mutilation as a matter of course. And within native americans culture, this kind of mutilation, it wasnt like this kind of mutilation had a cultural significance and white nding that soldiers did not pick up on or appreciate and i dont think they needed to appreciate it but when native americans used the same kind of practices, mutilations they did against one another on white soldiers this was the kind of thing that just drove white soldiers into a fury. So does that address your question . Okay. All right. Yes. There e civil war, was what youre talking about is a code named for francis leiber, a german american jurrist who was named head of a committee that put together the worlds First Official guidelines for the ethical conduct of an army in the field. Officially this was under general orders 100, published by the department on april 24, 1863, and, honestly, as far as i can tell, nobody read it, referred to it, anything like that. [laughter] im serious. I mean, nowadays, you know, back in the day i had to go through the official book by book and now you can go through the cdrom and do a key word search. I havent found anything like that. I can tell you where general orders 100 really did come into play on a consistent basis and that was in the philippine war, 18 the 91902. I tell you something. If you followed the letter of what was allowed in leibers code, what you were allowed to do legally, you know, was some pretty scary stuff. And that was intentional on francis leibers part. You know, he felt like he said, sharp wars are brief. You know. So it was not it was not a gentle kind of document at all. In terms of the civil war, no, it does not seem to have been applied very much. Hat comes later. A few years ago s. C. Green brought out a really fascinating book, i thought, empire of summer moon by kwana parker, indian war chief, indian father, white mother. The very, very difficult time that the rebels in texas had in dealing with indian tribes, apache, comanche, and so forth, during the civil war, because so many texas units were called east to fight, in your look at this whole issue of rebels and sort of an s it a interest of maybe selfinterest that people like stan waite were commissioned by the government in richmond to raise, you know, indian confederate troops and did they do this because they thought they might get a better deal from the great white father in richmond than the great white father in washington . Its kind of a complex question certainly and maybe what did you find about the indians approach to whites, our Great American soldiers . I think there are two pieces to this. One is that certain native American Communities as you might imagine took advantage of the situation to revolt, to rebel. Because they knew that so Many American forces were distracted by the American Civil War. Thats why you get the sioux uprising in minnesota in 1862. But in terms of stan waite and the cherokees, the cherokee out in indian territory, they were slave holders. And they were and quite a number had a kind of mixture of caucasian blood. And so when confederate agents went to the indian territory to try to enlist native americans, you know, on the confederate side, one of the reports they sent, these people are like us. Theyre our kind of people. You know . You know, they dress like us. They arm like us. They farm like us. They hold slaves like us. You know, and that particular score the confederates were surprisingly cosmopolitan about dealing with the native americans. Of course, as i imagine you know, a portion of the Cherokee Nation did go with the confederacy and a portion went with the union. This happened with other indian tribes, too. That wound please having within the tribes as well as without. I was just wondering the way the army fought the war with native americans was that mostly driven by politicians or the Army Officers or business interests or just a combination of all that . What drives the train on these . Yes. Before the 1860s, there was a sense that the 1830s when the indian removal act was, the policy then becomes remove the native americans west of the mississippi. There is a sense of what is west of the mississippi . The Great American desert. You know. Solid grass land. Nobodys ever farmed that. Well nobody is going to want to have it so native americans can have it in perpetuity. We dont care. It turned out White America did want that land and so the policy changed and to put it briefly, the policy became one of placing native americans on reservations. Setting ecame one of them into sort of cultural extinction by trying to break up sort of the glue that kept indian communities together. Was a project humanitarian project under pratt, who create the Industrial School at carlyle barracks and he believed the terms of killing the indian to save the man. And so the reason i mention him is because many regular Army Officers had a certain ambivalence about the commission that they were being asked to carry out. Because the policy of their country, of their nation was to place indians on reservations and punish those who tried to get off reservations and so forth. At the same time this was a duty that many of them disliked having to carry out. I have two questions. In your research did you find any connection between the folks from the burning, sheridan, sherman, grant, any connection to those policies transferring to west of the Mississippi River . That these policies in the Shenandoah Valley and georgia, proven to be successful, maybe in total war, were carried west of the Mississippi River . A second question is this idea of coming together, that if there is no sense of coming together say between the races, could you translate that theory to the confederate treatment of u. S. Colored troops . Sure. Union generals and officers consciously took their experiences from the civil war and transferred it to the west is not something that i found evidence for any more than i found evidence for them taking the experience of the olonial feed fights or the war toward the seminole indians or the wars of the 1830s and transferred that into the american, to the war. So as i said before, and i think this is pretty much on target, the way that military people are practical people, and they tend to sort of, you know, solve the practical problem thats sitting in front of them. And they might be gratified to discover that, you know, hey, the tactic youre applying is the same one tried back in they might be gratified to know that was the case. But thats not how their minds work. With regard to your second question, which is to say about the way the confederate troops dealt with the u. S. Colored troops, yeah. What youre dealing with there is the denial of any kind of Political Community, full stop in the story, absolutely. Theres also a problem, too, that the confederates dealt with this. The official confederate policy captured nslave uscts on the assumption they had all been slaves. But if you follow the official policy, you know, and reenslave them, then what the union would do would be to retaliate in kind against confederate soldiers. So you couldnt hold you couldnt hold africanamerican soldiers as prisoners. That wasnt policy. You couldnt reenslave them. That was policy. So the best solution was to just not have any prisoners. You know. And that is one of the reasons why you get, you know, the massacres, the most famous one at fort pillow but there are others, too. Another thing, too, about these episodes with confederate roops and u. S. Colored troops. Most atrocities were called crimes of obedience. Like. Meli massacre in march, 1968. William calleys platoon carried out that massacre under orders from the lieutenant who carried it out under orders from the captain. That is usually what it takes to get that degree of lethalty. What is interesting about the way u. S. Confederate soldiers treated u. S. Colored troops is they slaughtered u. S. Colored troops without any goading from higher authority. They did it spontaneously. And, to me, somebody who is a sort of historian of these kinds of things, thats striking to me that that was, in fact, the case. Are there any episodes of u. S. Colored troops encountering native americans in warfare and anything striking about their behavior and those encounters . That is not something that i explored. And it really i really if i take another look at this at some point, thats something i will look at. What i can touch on though and whey was hoping you would ask me, because i can answer this question [laughter] is when u. S. Colored troops had the opportunity to slaughter confederates, did they . And that seems not to be the case. The only instance in which this may have occurred was fort blakely outside of mobile, alabama in the closing days of the civil war. And that is the only instance in which ive been able to find even a hint of that occurring. Let me ask one more. Talking about Political Community and the new book on damn yankees makes a very persuasive case about the degree of hatred of southerns toward northern in particular, both ways but more southerners toward northerners. And you have to hate the enemy in order to fight a war. And that there is much more hatred than we today appreciate and that they ceased feeling any kind of Political Community, southerners toward northerners, and with that in can whats going on is we then conclude race is really the only or the primary factor in all of this . George is right that there is sort of a loss of feeling in political communities as a result of fighting the war and even before the war. Do we lay it there and just race alone accounts for these differences . United now, race the states in that period, maybe throughout its entire history has tended to organize things in terms of race and its interesting that nowadays we think of there being a caucasian race. Ere was a time, though, when what we now think of as caucasian would have been sub divided into nordic, tutonic, mediterranean, this kind of a thing. And so the reason you can do this is because race is a social concept. It doesnt really exist. We invent it. We can uninvent it. Well, what seems to have been going on during the civil war, something that i noticed and george has probably noticed it more than i did, which is that you when the confederates talk about how much they dislike the damn yankees or whatever, the language that ey use is a racialized language. An know, and i think in article i did some years ago i suggested if the civil war had gone on long enough, you might have had a kind of a wholesale racializing of the north as an enemy. You begin to see some steps in that direction during the civil war, by the end of the civil war it the end of the civil war cuts that off. Okay. All right. [applause] youre watching American History tv all weekend every weekend on cspan3. To join the conversation, like us on facebook at cspan history. Coming up next on American History tv, author ron chernow talks about his book Alexander Hamilton which has been adapted into a broadway musical. He talks about the success of the show written by and starring lynn miranda and about his experience as the shows historical consultant. Roosevelt house at Hunter College hosted this hour and 10 minute event. Good evening. Im jennifer ravin i have the great privilege of being president of this extraordinary institution, Hunter College. Its a great pleasure for all of us to welcome you tonight to a conversation between ron chernow and harold holder the director of roosevelt house on the transformation of rons biography of Alexander Hamilton into a broadway sensation. Normally, roosevelt house programs are held in our Historic Homes but the excitement over this event was so great we had to move tonights event to the playhouse. The fact that a discussion about a musical that is standing room only has drawn an audience tonight that is standing room only is a perfect illustration of hamiltons phenomenal impact. And it is living proof of how this fabulous show has turned a mildmannered writer named ron chernow into a rock star. [laughter] it is true for years ron was recognized as one of our great contemporary historians. His life of George Washington won a pulitzer prize. His history of the house of morgan received the National Book award. His biography of Alexander Hamilton was a New York Times best seller. But lets be real. Before hamilton became a sensation, ron was not exactly what anyone would call a household name. He once said to a journal when he was told in the hundreds every week ron replied wiftfully his books usually drew about 30 letters. Now thanks to hamilton ron gets a multiple of that number every week. Now thats stardom. Im sure ron finds even more satisfying how excited hamilton has made people about American History. This one burst of musical genius has turned the Founding Fathers into, well, hip hop stars. Theyve gone from being formerly known as dead white men to living, breathing, multi racial figures whose songs young people constantly download and whose cast album just won the grammy. The most electrifying part of this is the impact on young people. How many of you in the audience have brought your families with you . Weve seen in the rsvps kids from tweens to college students. Be honest. When was the last time your kids asked to go hear a couple historians sitting around talking . So great is the excitement about hamilton that the Roosevelt Foundation has bought up blocks of tickets so Public School students can go see the show. [applause] just think of the impact in connecting our youngsters to our nations history in a fun, relevant, and catchy way. This show is not just entertainment. It is truly transform tiff teaching moments in america. I think also what that means for the future of broadway, all those youngsters getting their first exposure to one of the greatest american art forms, a chance they could never afford on their own. For so many of them, it will be at the beginning of a life long love affair with theater. All of this comes at a time when attitudes toward the american a past have been turning sour. Institutions named in honor of Woodrow Wilson and john calhoun for example are being debated. Washington and jefferson are being identified solely as slave owners. Alexander hamiltons place on the 10 bill was in jeopardy. Then the show hamilton. Now the Founding Fathers are seen as real human beings who love, hate, have passions, and ambitions, instead of card board figures in dusty books. And hamiltons place of honor on the 10 seems very secure. [applause] all of us at Hunter College look on these extraordinary developments with pride because him as one of our own. He is after all a graduate of Hunter Elementary School and hunter high. [applause] in fact, this is where it all began. By the time he was in eighth grade he had already written his very first musical based on a favorite novel, the chosen. While he was working on his first Tony Award Winning hit, he returned to Hunter High School to teach english. Now, it wasnt always clear sailing for lynn. In his fifth grade music class with mrs. Ames he got a report card that noted his many talents but also spotlighted a short coming. After awarding him satisfactory in the stan be dard categories ms. Ames hand wrote this note. Lin manuel sings beautifully. He is very theatrical and dramatic but seems to have no interest in chorus. No interest in chorus. So it looks like even then lin manuel was dreaming of the center spotlight. Barbara ames the teacher with such an inspirational influence is here with us this evening. I want to welcome her and thank her on behalf of everybody for what she has done with lin manuel. [applause] now, there are a few people in addition to mrs. Ames who have a better understanding of what makes Lin Manuel Miranda tick than ron chernow. Lin got the inspiration of course for his musical after he started reading rons outstanding biography of hamilton. He saw the story of an immigrant with an impoverished background who rose to become one of the greatest Founding Fathers and realized this story speaks volumes about the American Experience and connects directly and powerfully to the lives of countless people today who struggle to find their piece of the american dream. Lin asked ron chernow to serve as his historical adviser for the creation of hamilton and that story of the electric collaboration is what well hear tonight. Ron, we are also grateful to you for your willingness to share this experience with us. And we are delighted that the person discussting with you is roosevelt ector of house. Harold joins us after a brilliant career in public life including being press secretary to one of hunters own. He had a long life as head of Marketing Communications for the metropolitan museum of arts and, of course, he is, himself, an extraordinary historian. No one could be better cast in this evenings role than harold. He is one of the foremost biographers of abraham lincoln. Just last year he was awarded a prize for his book on lincoln and the press and his collective contributions have earned him a National Humanities medal. Now that lins musical has taught broadway how to bring history to life perhaps the next will be about lincoln. The only caveat is that harold has reduced so much rich material that it would need to be a marathon like staging all four ring operas in one night or another nicholas nickelby. It is a pleasure to have these two outstanding authors here for what i know will be a discussion that is really transformative, what ron has called a biographers Wish Fulfillment fantasy. Will you join me tonight in welcoming them. Thank you. [applause] a prop for the two or three people in the audience who dont know what the book looks like. Welcome. To the audience on cspan as well. Andill have a conversation we will invite questions toward the end of the conversation so you will be invited to microphones. I want to welcome my friend ron. It is a banner day. It is wonderful that you are doing this for roosevelt house. Here, it is very 25th. The 225th