tv Confederate General Edward Porter Alexander CSPAN May 6, 2017 6:01pm-6:56pm EDT
influences historians and other writers. a. gary gallagher is professor in history of the american civil war at the university of virginia and a great friend to the virginia historical society. he has spoken here on several occasions and has done research here in the rich holdings of our civil war manuscripts. he was a member of the class in 1988. i won't tell you how old i was at that point. we were glad to have him then as today. he has also mined the collection of the confederate memorial society at the museum of the confederacy for his essays. that question, -- that collection, as you may know, will be housed at the virginia historical society where it will be preserved, catalog, and digitized as part of a new civil war research center. be, through this
partnership, the largest private repository of civil war archives in the world. [applause] imagine, that comes with a great cost and lots of work. this is a $3 million effort to andide storage, process catalog the collection, and in doubt this so it can be available to the largest possible audience. we're halfway there, and we welcome your help. professor gallagher has received many awards, including the prize for the best book on the civil award for contributions to civil war studies, the lincoln prize, and the award for the best nonfiction book on the civil war. he was the founder and first president for the fou
ndation of preserving civil war sites. please join me in welcoming professor gallagher. prof. gallagher: i am going to switch microphones. i am delighted to be here. it is always fun to speak in this room. jamie wouldn't tell you how old he was when i was a mellon fellow here. i will reveal i had brown hair. it was a long time ago in deed. it was about that time i gave a lecture in the mural gallery, which i don't think happens anymore, a lecture about the lost cause. the vibe in the room was right for that lecture. the vibe in this room is perfect because it is filled with booksellers and those of you who are friends of the library and interested in history.
i will talk about the best .onfederate memoirs that is edward porter alexander. that is not just my view, it would be unanimous of people who know what books confederate soldiers wrote. by himself. these accounts are unrivaled among those published by men who fought for the confederacy. they were written over a decade beginning in the late 1890's, but appeared more than 80 years apart, in print more than 80 years apart. a critical narrative was first 07.lished in 19 the next was published in 1989. brought to his books and a little coal acuity, a gift for describing key scenes and
dramatic and memorable fashion, and the perspective of one who toterly fought from manassas appomattox. he served on the staff of general beauregard. lee, beforeand distinguishing himself as the ist in theillery's i confederacy. he wrote with almost none of the lost cause special pleading that was evident in the writings of s.st of his former comrade i want to convey a sense of why alexander's books are remarkable. i will start with a little biographical information before moving on to address how he wrote the books and what audience he had in mind for each of them. he had very different audiences
in mind. i will close by reading passages from the books that will illustrate their great strengths. his narrative skills. i will open and close with three of his finest narrative passages. they are great, gripping, fine narratives. every part of his book this is true. they convey interesting information about the army, it's makeup, and its character. i will use passages that illustrate his willingness to convey the heard, the dark side, of the civil war. i will quote a couple of passages that show his sharp criticism of lost cause icons lee and jackson at a time when confederates didn't do that. he is not all alone in his
willingness to do that, but he doesn't have much company. i will offer other passages that he deviated from what people generally expected to get in an account written by a former confederate. before getting on with the substance of my talk, i will give you to personal observations. i spent four years editing "fighting for the confederacy." i worked on them through the late 1980's. of all the projects, that was the most enjoyable. the only one i was sorry to finish here use only -- usually are not only happy to finish but staggering to the end wondering if life is worthwhile. in "fighting for the confederacy, it was not that way because i knew i'd would not be in porter alexander's company anymore.
this is interesting to the audience because of the booksellers, but as a confirmed bibliophile since i was 10 years old, i have had the chance to own many copies of the memoirs of fighting for the confederate. the first edition in 1907 that had a dust jacket on it. the person that sold that timmy is in this audience, but i had porter alexander's own copy with his annotations. 2 very nice copies to own. now i will stop talking about that. just to set the scene, he was born into a prominent slave owning family in washington, georgia on may 25, 1836. he received his education at tutors at home before going to , graduatingn 1853
third in the class of 1857. he was marked from the beginning as someone that would go somewhere. and the three years following at westuation he taught point, participated in the last days of the mormon war, and developing the -- >> system of motion telepathy ghat would be -- the wigwa system of motion that would be used in the war. he left in february of 1861 and made his way to richmond. upon arrival found out he had the commissioned in confederacy's fledgling army. no other officer played such a varied roles or worked closely with such prominent officers as ep alexander. he joined beauregard's staff as the chief signal officer in june
of 1861. he also made him chief of ordinance in his army. he held both posts in johnston's thatand under re lee after . he served in both capacities through much of 1862. he did so during the peninsula campaign, second bull run, and during the maryland campaign of 1862. he was also frequently called upon to perform engineering tasks. he was really smart. smart. he was really you could tell he probably found ways to let other people know he was really smart. he was really smart, so people valued him and asked him to do things that were not necessarily related to his official portfolio within the army. lee was one of those. lee and the others figured out
while he was doing these things figured out where his real aptitude was, was with artillery. we have no more accomplished officer, wrote the chief of and recommending alexander be promoted to command one of the battalions of artillery in james long street's first corp. he gathered the batteries into battalions in the autumn of 1862, a much more efficient way to deploy artillery. it is one of the great innovations in artillery during the war. now he has been given a battalion. lee thought that was where he belonged and he was promoted to a colonel in 1863. he now had a secure place in the branch where he would make his
reputation. themost famous historian of army of northern virginia, wrote of alexander, he was far and away the superior of all others in this arm. he was the best confederate artillerist. i've made that .4 times. i won't tell you again, but you can file that away. he immediately excelled in his position at he plays the guns in fredericksburg that played such a significant role during the battle of fredericksburg on december 13, 1862. he was the key person on may the third. hazel grove, they key ground that gave the confederates one of the few opportunities during
the war to obtain artillery superiority in a major battle. he was in charge of the bombardment in gettysburg on july 3, 1863. he is everywhere in lee's campaign. he is in the first corp, but while half was near suffolk, alexander was with the army. all throughhem those campaigns. he went to north georgia in september of 1863 with long first corp. on all of those fields he functioned as the tactical chief of artillery in james long first corp. that position.
this was a difficult situation. it made sense in a practical way because the best person is in charge when it counts the most, but not all the time. there was a little bit of tension. that was a situation that .nvolved frustration that ended in 1864 when alexander was promoted to brigadier general and became the official head of the artillery. there are only three biggest brigadier generals of artillery. he maintained his position through the seizure of petersburg and on his way to appomattox near it he helped to lay out part of the defensive line in richmond in the last part of the war. lee and eventually put him in charge of all the confederate artillery between the james and appomattox river's. as the army made its way to
appomattox and went on the ninth of april, federals were pressing in several directions against lee's troop. porter alexander drew the last battle line on the army in northern virginia and ended his .emorable military career despite the demands of a successful postwar career, he was an educator and railroad executive -- i won't go into that. despite supporting his family, he had a large family, he had the opportunity to study the campaigns of the war. he was originally going to write a history of the first corp but was too busy. he didn't push through with that. he cannot find enough cheerio as he wanted -- and enough material as he wanted. he dropped his plan to write a history of the first corp in the late 1860's.
he returned to the history of the war in the 1870's and contributed several pieces. to the century2 company's landmark series. he began thinking about perhaps writing more than just essays. heall of the things that wrote, he showed a scrupulous absencen to detail, and of special pleading that showed him to be very different from most of the men writing about the war. most people sought to get even. now i will get even with him. i will write this article, and it will feel so good to get even with him. he will know how good it makes me feel, and that will make him feel even worse. life is rich. robert underwood johnson was one of the editors and aptly
described alexander as a man of "integrity and candor. anything he writes can be relied upon." a fuller undertook memoir in the late 1890's. he was sent to net for wobbler to adjudicate a boundary dispute by grover cleveland. nicaragua to adjudicate a boundary dispute by grover cleveland. his daughter said i want you to ,tart writing them for us meaning his children. so, he decided that would probably be a good idea. he didn't have a lot of time on his hands. he had a small library. he had brief diaries that he had kept during the war. he corresponded with fellow confederate soldiers as he went along and he began to retrace
the campaigns of the army of northern virginia. he intended to let no one but his family read that account. that is important. he is not writing this for publication. he does not think anyone will read this except for his children, perhaps their children, and perhaps a very small circle of his closest friends. he still wanted to get things right. as he explained to one of his sisters, i intend not to publish, but only to let my children see these. so, of course, they are very personal, he wrote to his sister . even though they were personal, he said he wanted to get things right. "i have written with my own viewings a critical narrative of the military game being played. i have not hesitated to
criticize our moves as i would in chess, no matter what general made them." returning home he would revise the manuscript. he wanted to finish a first draft for leaving th nicaragua. he thought he would polish it and let his family see it. s when iust fill in gap get home. he thought it would take 2 years. he did finish a draft before he left in october of 1899. it was a shade more than 1200 pages long. he has a beautiful hand. when i edited it, there was one word that we couldn't figure out. porter alexander seemed to take a different view. how about writing a night
in a legibleiting hand? it offered innumerable insights aso lee and his campaigns, well as a supplied antidotes about alexander's activities. bluntly honest in a text he believed very few people would see, except family and friends. he did campaigns with an impartial and analytical eye. in the literature. re lee, stonewall jackson, and others in the southern pantheon came in for close analysis. he admired both of them a great deal and there is a great amount of praise, but also very telling critiques of them. characteristic
of southern accounts influenced by the myth of the lost cause have almost no place in the great town recollections, almost none. 90 years after alexander wrote published them. there is a long period when no one knows this existed. the only reason i found out is because stephen roe saw a passage and showed it to me.crick who showed it to we discussed which would edit it. crick because he is such a stonewall jackson guy, said why don't you go look in chapel hill? he would not have said that if you knew what was there. i think he deeply regrets this. i decided to give myself one week to figure out what it was.
the manuscript for "fighting for the confederacy" had been pulled apart and the chapters filed with topical writings with other of his papers. this 1200 page manuscript disappeared. people who did see it believed it was a draft of campaigns. i found a letter to his wife that said i am sending the gettysburg chapter. aps.s 115 pages with 2 m i found that an began to look for other pieces. it was friday afternoon when i found this letter. quicklyed my vistit, and had a manuscript that went from page 1 to 1200. it was remarkable. it was fun. some might say, big fun. the great town reminiscences are
the first ones. n as thethe graytow basis out of which military mamaemoirs grew. 1899eath of his wife in and of a daughter five months later cast alexander in a very depressed place. what pulled him out in the end was the decision to revise his reminiscence into another book. he decided to make it a different kind of book. he talked to leading historians at the time, it is always dangerous to talk to historians. he talked to them and they said it is interesting, but why don't you get rid of the personal make ithy don't you more of the history of the army of northern virginia.
alexander took out most of the really personal stuff, he left some in, but made it a more analytical, almost scholarly of northernthe army virginia. it took him almost 6 years. wt differed from the grayton manuscript inn important ways. most of the personal stuff is gone. a lot of the really blunt assessments are gone. he toned those down. he is still critical, but not the kind of language he used in "fighting for the confederacy." of the text to% events before gettysburg. military memoirs, 57%. they gave 13% to gettysburg.
graytown had 47% after gettysburg. military memoirs, 28%. it was published in 1907, and it made an immediate impact. it gained the status very quickly of that overused word "classic." something could be a classic on thursday. it happens on monday, it is a classic? really? three days later? this one was perceived quickly as a classic. theodore roosevelt informed alexander shortly that "i must write to tell you that i have thoroughly enjoyed your military memoirs." the army and navy journal announced it "one of the most valuable of all books on the
war." though many southerners complained of alexander's sometimes too harsh evaluations of lee, or took exception to his lack of regret over the decline of the confederacy, but most had a deep admiration for what alexander accomplished. later stories echoed that an initial enthusiasm. in a reprint, t. harry williams during thetroduction centennial years. williams was one of the towering figures in civil war scholarship at that point. he said, "no book by a participant in the war has done so much to shape the historical that.of conflict as alexander drew lessons from the battles, lessons can be drawn from his book. that the finest military history can be written by a
soldier who is also a scholar." the criticism from modern scholars pre-1989 was that he had not put enough of his own experiences in his book. we wish we had gotten more from him. rates whenism event you put "fighting for the confederacy" along with " military memoirs from the confederacy." they complement each other and are a matchless contribution to the literature on the military side of the war. now, i will review some passages from the two books to give you a sense of why i think it is so good. i will open with a passage from "military memoirs" dealing with fredericksburg. not the battle on december 13, but the scene on december 11,
1862 as the united states army engineers are throwing pontoon bridges under fire over the rappahannock river. alexander has this incredible on. of what is going this scene of fredericksburg was never duplicated. it is an amp a theatrical where you can see more men than any other place at any other time in the war. this is how alexander talked about the union artillery bombarding the city because confederates are using the links in the city as shelter to resist the bridge builders on the union side. the city steeples were veiled in the midst that settled in the valley. it showed the round, high clouds of bursting shells. out of its midst there rose three or four columns of dense black smoke from houses set on
fire by the explosion. the atmosphere was so column and still that the smoke rose vertically for several hundred feet before spreading out in black sheets. the opposite bank of the river for two miles to the right and left was crowned at frequent intervals with blazing batteries canopied in clouds of white smoke. beyond these, the dark blue masses of 100,000 infantry and columns and numberless white wagons and ambulances in orderly ranks, all awaiting completion of the bridges. the earth shook with the thunder of the guns. 200 feet above it all hung immense ulletins. -- balloons. it gave the vast resources of
the nation that scented forth. an amazing scene of what could be seen that day. let me give three samples of how alexander was willing to reveal the really hard, bloodthirsty, part of the war. the first from may the third at chancellorsville here just after his guns had achieved superiority over the union guns come the united states army in retreat, hooker has been stunned by around. the federals are retreating to the north. alexander moves into position. i will pick up his writing. by the time we good get over, the enemy had abandoned his 25 gun pits. we opened on the fugitives infantry, artillery, wagons, everything swarming around the house and the broad road leading to the river.
that is the part of artillery service that might be denominated, to fire on the swarming fugitives who cannot answer back, one usually has to pay for that pie before he gets it, so he has no conscience of chivalry. we ceased firing, and ordering the guns to follow as they could limber up, several wounded federal soldiers were lying here who had been quartered inside and removed when it caught fire. i remember a beautiful newfoundland dog that had been killed lying in the yard. staffl lee and his rode up, and the two portions of his army was united. you don't get many telling how much delight they get in killing people running away from them and not in a position to fight back. his blunt and he describes the
fighting at the crater. the first time the army in northern virginia ever ran into significant numbers of black troops on the federal side. inis very matter-of-fact fighting for the confederacy about the impact that first confrontation had. comparatively very few negro prisoners taken that day. it was the first occasion on which any of the army of northern virginia came in contact with negro troops, and the general feeling was very bitter. wherempathy of the north john ground's memory was taken for proof of desire that our slaves should rise in servile insurrection and massacre throughout the south. the negro troops were regarded as advertisement of that desire and encouragement of the idea to the negro.
that made the fighting exceedingly fierce and bitter on the part of our men. not only towards the negroes themselves, but even the white men that fought alongside them. some of the negro prisoners that were originally allowed to surrender were shot right others. there was a great deal of unnecessary killing of them. matter of fact, i will describe and move on. a very unusual passage defined in a confederate memoir. he did not dress up language. abide by theeally victorian conventions, especially not in "fighting for the confederacy." he is willing to put, we know the 19th century americans have all the words that we have. we have theyat
have. they used all the words we use. if we would have wandered around the battlefield, we would have bsought, goodness, f-bom everywhere. most would not put that down. here is porter alexander describing a situation at first bull run late in the phase of the battle where a bunch of civilians came out to watch the climactic battle. one of those was a congressman from new york named alfred ely. he was going to be captured by the confederates who happened to be part of the unit commanded by ellerbee b.c. cash. porter alexander comes up while this little drama is playing out late in the battle. as he reached the rear of the eighth south carolina infantry,
cache's regiment, i will pick up his narrative. i saw a fine looking sergeant a small manut with in citizen stress to take him before the kernel. this is alfred yulee. the kernel is a tall fellow, 35 to 40 years old, redheaded, red faced, gray eyes, strong featured. angry as a storm cloud and yet drawn his revolver and was trying to shoot the little civilian who was ducking behind the sergeant major. the colonel was swearing with a fluency which would have been credible to a wagon master. bitch,nfernal son of a you came to see the fight, didn't you. soul."n your alexander tried to intervene.
their instructions were not to execute people on the battlefield. ,ame down here to see the fun came to see us whipped and killed. ou, if not for you there would be no war. i'm going to show you. then, cash tried to shoot little man, who was evidently scared almost into a fit. [laughter] ice again, alexander said, won't try to quote, calm down kernel. you are not supposed to be executing people on the scene. and he calmed down a little bit. then he said turn him over to the provost marshal, then go hunt the woods for senator foster. he is hiding there somewhere. go find him here it if you bring
him in a life, i will cut your ears off. that we seea side often of confederate officers on battlefields. he is being harsh in his language. i don't think there was a safe space -- [laughter] ely on that battlefield. i think he was feeling a micro-aggression from kernel colonel cash. he was willing to criticize even the most iconic of the confederate leaders. ok,s pick to add random, lee and jackson. this is porter alexander talking about lee at gettysburg. this is from "fighting for the
confederacy." on the first day we had taken the aggressive, though a casual reading of general lee's report would suggest the aggressive on the second day seemed forced upon him, but it is qualified by the expression "in a measure" "hopeseference to the success.by our partial " earlier there was no difficulty whatsoever and our soma afterwards as to have finally meade to attack us. 60% of our chances for a victory was lost but our continuing the aggressive. this is at a time when most are explaining gettysburg as it was james montreat's fault. it had been everyone's fault but ee's.l
then you have porter alexander is saying it is general lee's fault. he had harsh things to say about stonewall jackson in richmond . it is not hard to beat critical of stonewall jackson at the seven days. if anyone under stonewall behaved the way stonewall jackson had behaved, he would have arrested him and tried to run him out of the army. we know that didn't happen. there is an aside that alexander did not put in the text, but wrote it on the paper he was using, and he said there were several members of li's staff that wandered charges against stonewall jackson because of his action at the seven days. lee said, what good would that accomplish at this point? he was more sophisticated than
most people. here is how he described jackson at the seven-days. lee took himself off to the jackson to leave to leave the most brilliant victory failure isjackson's not so much a military as a psychological phenomenon. he did not try to fail, he .imply made no effort he spent the 29th in can't in disregard of lee's instructions, and the 30th in equal idleness at white oak swap. his 29,000 infantry practically did not fire a shot on those 2 days. alexander did not approve of tha t. even handed in terms of not following usual lost cause tendencies am usually they would try to deprecate grant, as if it was a zero sum game.
you cannot admit they were both great soldiers, you have to pretended grant wasn't great. .lexander didn't do that he talked about grants movement away from the harbor, that amazing movement that involved crossing the james with that incredible pontoon bridge. this is how alexander describes this. grant had devised a piece of strategy all his own, which seems the most brilliant stroke in all federal campaigns of the whole war. it was by roundabout roads, but entirely out of our observation, to precipitate his whole army upon petersburg, which was held by scarcely 6000 men. and to stuff beauregard -- beauregard was down there. all the credit belongs to
general grant. the order in the details of such a rapid movement of so mighty in army with immense trains its artillery across two rivers on its own pontoon bridges make it the most brilliant piece of logistics of the entire war. there is very little of that kind of honest admiration for anything the grant date by former confederates. coursenot buy into, of the united states one because the victory was inevitable. there is no way the confederacy could have one. .- could have won fate is often brought into the picture. one of the most prominent monuments is in a cemetery. that monument says in the front "fate denied the victory, but crowned them with immortality."
on your side, what is the point. the south could never have the rest.r, you know porter alexander does not buy into it that fate had nothing to do with it. it is customary to say allow us toid not win. i don't buy into that. providence did not care a row of pins. he is getting into -- and while i'm on the subject, i will say i cuba it was a serious in is on us that during the whole war, our president and many , andals, underlined believed, underlined, there was a mysterious providence hovering
over the fields ready to interfere on one side or the other. it was a weakness to imagine victory would come in even the slightest degree from anything except our own exertions. withnow going to finish two more air to examples. i sense a question in the audience. are we almost finished? [laughter] how long is this guy going to talk? withl bring this to an end two more examples of what i consider alexander's wonderful narrative ability to be evocative in a way that few -- grant could match it in some ways. the only equivalent of alexander in terms of the quality of a postwar account is grant on the
union side. alexander's the best on the confederate side. that gets atage the bond between lee and the soldiers in the army of northern virginia. the scene alexander chose is corplongstreet's first gets back from tennessee. even longstreet was really glad to be back. he got a dose and thought it was not so bad in virginia after all. divisions, down to 10,000 men. they had 20,000 at gettysburg, there are 10,000 here drawn up in 2 divisions for review. this review took place in mechanicsville. not the mechanicsville in richmond, but the mechanicsville by charlottesville, the spot
where longstreet would march through the wilderness on the first of may. i can see the large square gate posts marking where a broad country road led out of it halt oakwood upon an open field. in front and center of our long gray lines. in a well remembered figure of general lee at the head of his staff, he writes between the posts, and comes out upon the knoll and thunders out a salute. the general reigns his horse, head, and weay shout and raise our battle flags, and look back at him. a wave of sentiment that can only come from large crowds in full sympathy swept over the field. each felt the bond that held us
to lee. the effect was that of a military sacrament in which we pledged anew our lives or delete is back with us, we are back with him, we have been gone a long time. effect is of a military sacrament. i will finish with a scene in richmond. petersburg on april 1, the lines are crumbling at petersburg. word comes to richmond, this cannot be maintained. we will have to get out. you know the chaotic situation in early april. the confederate set some fires, they spread from the capital around the basin. will go up.ur mills all of the photographs of
burned-out buildings in richmond, those fires are blazing. the last of the confederates are coming out of the city. you know the lithograph coming across the bridge with the fires in the background here here is porter alexander's description of what that moment meant to him. after sunrise on of bright morning from the manchester high grounds we turned to take a last look at the old city for which we had fought so long and so hard. it was a sad, terrible, and solemn site. inon't know that any moment the war impressed me so deeply with its stern realities than this. the whole riverfront seemed to be in flames, a monk which occasional explosions were heard . the black smoke over the city seemed to be full of dreadful portends. heavy on with a
heart and a peculiar feeling of orphanage. an amazing passage to describe the kind of things that must have been going through the of veterans in an army whose principal job for three years had been to defend this place. now, it is over. the combination of scholarship descriptive power ensures that readers will be enlightened and entertained. they will also come away with the feeling of alexander as friend. someone who reaches out across more than a century to help us understand some of the most important people and events of o ur most transformational national event. thank you. [applause]
prof. gallagher: the good news is you are under no imperative to stay if you don't want to. 2 questions.for an interesting, entertaining talk. turning from his words to his work, you mentioned the bombardment that preceded pettigrew and pickett at gettysburg. some have regarded that as largely an ineffective bombardment. what was alexander's take? prof. gallagher: it was complicated. he said within 10 minutes he could not determine the effect of his fire on cemetery ridge. we know that it was an ineffective bombardment.
19th century artillery was not capable of the procession that could hit a target as shallow as cemetery ridge. he worried about how much ammunition he had, and finally conveyed the infantry would need to get going or it would not be able to support it with artillery. scholarship shows a big part of the problem was with confederate fuses. they have problems with them throughout the war. from hi hazel's grove, somewhere so frustrated they stopped using explosive rounds. they would detonate prematurely or not at all. at gettysburg they seemed to designate late, so the full effect of the bombardment fell on the reverse of cemetery ridge then on the western side where the fire was directed to go.
work has been done with the ordinance records suggesting the ordinance having these problems, and i think they manifested themselves at gettysburg. very noisy. alexander said the bombardment, the usual time you see from two hours, from 1:00 to 3:00, forander said it lasted less than an hour. he might have known something about how long it went. >> does alexander say something about how lee missed the best chance to win the war by failing to take grant in the flank when grant leaves cold harbor and goes across the james? prof. gallagher: he does not say that. he thinks the confederates lost a great chance during the seven days. lee at they hard on seven days. maybe a little too hard because
it was not lee's army at the seven days. holmes and mcgruder. you have a weak foundation. but he isted that, hard on him in the seven days. also at gettysburg. alexander only saw his part. he said the bombardment should have been against cemetery hill because we could have achieved converging fire and had that or he's from the north and batters from seminary ridge firing on that part of the line. on our part we are firing on a shallow target. he added the only person who knew what the whole line looked lee.was r.e.
if you want, his 100 pages on for therg in "fighting confederacy" are one of the best analytical takes on that you will find anywhere you cannot go wrong. whathas nothing to do with i did, i just made it available to be published. the analytical quality of his ,ork is in a category by itself all by itself, among former confederates that wrote about the war. he is so smart, honest, blunt, careful, that it is simply all by itself. now that i've said that three times, that is enough, too. thank you. [applause] this weekend on american
history tv on c-span3, at 8:00 on lectures in history, the sire college professor john fea on the ideas that shaped the 1776 pennsylvania constitution. the continental congress, representatives from the colonies, have instructed after the july 4 declaration all of the colonies, now states, to form new governments. >> sunday at 4:30 p.m. eastern secret service and fbi agents reflect on protecting president reagan following the 1981 assassination attempt. had recognized the shots gone off. then i only had seconds to determine where the shots were coming from. by that time you saw the smoke from the weapons and individuals moving towards the potential assailant. i'ov