c-span.org a c-span's new online store. go there today to order a copy of the congressional directory. a compact spiral bound book with contact information for every member of congress, including bio and committee assignments. also contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy at c-span.org. every c-span shop purchase help support c-span's nonprofit organization. up next on the presidency. james worth and talks about

president eisenhower's treasury and defense quarter is and how their personalities and styles influenced administration policies. both men one with no government experience and the other a former general motors presidents formed business perspective to the cabinet jobs. he is the author of george humphrey, charles wilson and eisenhower's war on spending. the dwight d. eisenhower presidential library hosted this event and provided the video. welcome to our monthly luncheon program with the eisenhower presidential library, i'm so thankful that you are here with us today. i'm so excited to welcome and james awards in to talk about it with us today. he's going to talk about a little bit of eisenhower's administration members that perhaps we haven't really talked about that much in the past. so james, went on to take it away and tell us a little bit about yourself. >> well thank you don, thank you samantha. i'm really sorry i can't be there today, unfortunately we live in crazy times. so i'm here in california,

speaking of where people are from, which is about halfway between los angeles and san francisco. a nice place to be unless there is a fire going on behind you in which there was a few weeks ago. but i'm fine and the weather is much better. my name is jim, i'm in native californian. just to summarize, i spent my career at the central intelligence agency after school and that sort of thing. and now, i write american history with a focus on how personality affects a political behavior. and since retiring, i've written three books on that subject. one all disgustedly, as you know, is it looks at eisenhower's relationships with two of his more important cabinet members.

so one question is, how did i get from the cia to eisenhower, well it's quite a story, here's the short version. at the cia, i had several jobs but would i think i enjoyed the most was chief of the soviet, where the russian leadership division. our job there was to write biographies of russian officials. and we would give these biographies to american diplomats so they would know something about the russians they were dealing with, you know, where they friendly, where the hostile, where the evasive? more the emotional, where they logical, that sort of thing. so when i left the agency, i had enjoyed this work so much i decided i wanted to work in biography even more. and to change from russians to writing about 20th century american political figures and

i specially wanted to do personality assessment, which i had been used to doing at the cia. you think of all the personalities, all the politicians who had big personalities and which fed into their leadership style, for people like churchill and roosevelt and charles the goal and an lyndon johnson of all people. so i decided to write about richard nixon as sort of a beginning because nixon was not only californian, but he was also an introvert an extrovert profession, which is quite a story. and so, the book is called the young mixing and his rivals, which you see on your screen. most people don't realize this about nixon, but at one time, he was only the fourth most important republican politician in the state of california.

you see here on your screen some of the ones that are more important, governor errol war on the right and senator william on the left. and his successor is governor goodwin night and who is second from the left. so this book towels and that story and now you can perhaps see how i got from there, eisenhower. because i became interested in the strange relationship between nixon and eisenhower played out while nixon was vice president. so i decided to look more closely at eisenhower and how he worked with members of his cabinet. so, here's the book on the screen. so why wilson? well first, because they were businessmen and one of the sub plots in this book is the

affinity that i can, for members of the business community, you recall he had a gang of buddies who he hunted and fished with and play bridge the with and they will businessmen. eisenhower felt more comfortable with businessmen, as many of you, know than he did with other military officers. so why did -- the question is, why did eisenhower become free and wilson for these jobs? another reason for focusing on them is that not much has been written about humphrey or wilson. they were the only -- they strikes me is interesting. they were the only major figures in the eisenhower administration who did not write memoirs or any kind of recollections of their service. they just went off and retired to their country estates and they never looked back. so unfortunately, we lack a

first person feel for their experiences but luckily we have the recollections of their colleagues and their subordinates and of course the president that they both worked for. so, who were home free and wilson? humphrey, towards humphrey who became treasury secretary was the longtime head of a long materialist empire near the great lakes. his picture is coming up here. his main job before joining the eisenhower of ministration was ceo of a company called amy hannah. but the company had anything to do with cole or war, humphrey had a hand in it. it's great skills where business organization and management and specialty was acquiring on profitable

companies and turning them around. he had a razor sharp mind, he was very self assured, he was charming, he was persuasive, a competitive his said that watching him in a boardroom looks like the equivalent of the year of harvard business school so you can imagine humphrey was a pretty smooth character. by the 1940s, he controlled of variety of enterprises, including the largest coal company in the world, several banks and all the while, keeping such a low profile with -- chosen us secretary, nobody outside of washington had the faintest idea who he was. so, why was he selected? well that's a long story to, but the short version is that he would bring up business perspective into learning the nation's economy. the problem was, he had no

experience in government and he was not an economist. and being an economist certainly helped in that kind of a job. now wilson, at the time he was chosen to the cabinet was much better known. he was president of the largest company in the world, a general motors, a picture of him is coming up. actually this picture of the big three automakers in the 1940s, you see on the left, they have a studebaker. and on the right, mr. ford who was running ford motor company at the time. and wilson in the memo, these guys were very important people. and gm, under wilson's leadership, as you probably know retooled his entire auto assembly line into weapons production.

and if it hadn't been foreign all the weapons that can produce the during the war, the allies might well have not won -- have not been victorious. so here was supported guy who had been on the cover of time newsweek biden, so people had a fairly good idea of who wilson wise. now he was a very different kind of guy, i different kind of executive tint or tom free. he was trained as an engineer and he kind of hadn't engineers way of approaching problems. he was a data collector, he had a hard time making decisions until he knew all there was to know about this object. he enjoyed immersing himself in details. and these tendencies would later prove to be a real live brilliantly and his next job. why was he selected? mainly because eisenhower wanted the pentagon to be

managed well and the thought was that wilson, managing the world's largest company would probably be a good choice and with this his experience in defense production, he would probably know something about weapons production. so to summarize, i'm free wilson was theory typical businessmen, they were midwestern, they were privileged and privileged backgrounds, they were very conservative. and they took office with the eisenhower team in march, 1953. let me briefly tell you the kind of challenges they were facing in this job. some reality star important to keep in mind, as you, know republicans had been out of power for 20 years. almost an entire generation. the country had come through a really trying time, world war

ii, depression. now the korean war was going on and all of these had required lots and lots of money. so truman had even left eisenhower within 8 million dollar budget deficit, which eisenhower felt was a shockingly high. so it was safe to assume that these guys came into power in 1953, that there would be deep cuts in spending. but it was still not entirely clear what kind of president eisenhower was. he clearly had concern -- conservative instincts, but he was more for being a war hero. then a strong political partisan. as you know, he got upset but they suggested that he do something for political reasons. he just wasn't that kind of guy in, fact he talked frequently

when the best policy on any issue was somewhere in the middle of the road. how many politicians in the last 50 years have you heard say that? pardon me for a second. truman had tom eisenhower back in 1948 if eisenhower ran for president as a democrat, truman would support him. so it was unclear with direction eisenhower would lean when he came into power. he was no economist, but he had worked on budgets in the army. he clearly understood balance sheets and it seemed obvious to him that money coming in had equal money going out. besides eisenhower had a believed that deficits were national security issue.

law they would weaken economy. this would make it hard to compete with russians. anything was clear, it was that the new administration would not spend a lot of money on new programs. even though the economic policy issues, the focus here is on personality and style. for one thing economic policy is not that riveting to most people. second, i'm not an economist myself, so the book really focuses on the stylistic aspects of eisenhower and wilson. the first question you might ask is how wilson and humphrey adapted to this environment. you could say that humphrey took official washington by storm. he did a series of interviews

with newspapers. all the journalists came away very impressed. they said so in the papers. one correspondent wrote you could imagine him going into a frantic board of directors meeting and calming it with a few practical comments and's words. when ike and his advisers began meeting they agreed he was by far the smoothest guy in the room. as you know, eisenhower took cabinet seriously. early on he was relatively uninformed about domestic policy. so he kind of learned a lot from hearing the members and argue and debate with each other and the cabinet minutes were fascinating, because eisenhower would often play the devils advocate. he would go back and forth all the while learning through all these heavyweights in the room a kind of on the job.

humphrey was a natural in his setting. he always came and totally prepared. if there was a long debate at the cabinet meeting he would be the first to suggest a course of action. so bringing a picture here of eisenhower and humphrey -- these two guys clicked immediately. eisenhower had never met humphrey interesting lee enough before. but he liked him immediately. he was so impressed, that within a few months he was inviting humphrey to join his gang in bridge vacations on the weekends and one of these -- cliff roberts later wrote the remarkable thing about humphrey was that he was a terrible

golfer and a lousy bridge player. robert said he had absolutely no card sense and that they tried to teach him gulf and get him all the right equipment but he never caught on to it. ike and the rest just enjoyed his fellowship. having him around. so he must have been quite a charming man. this closeness to the president, it was kind of a problem because it gave him a tremendous advantage as an adviser, i mean when you with these guys that agreed to an advance or to what extent humphrey spoke to the president hattie did on occasions. now ike was interested in cutting spending. humphrey was absolutely obsessed by -- he came into office. every spin he spent by the government was challenged. every cabinet meeting, humphrey

would hammer home big. a message that every department had to stop unnecessary spending, he later told his friends quote, it just had to come up every day, i had to keep working at it all the time, and humphrey did and any meeting that whatever the subject matter is he said is you've got to stop and you've got a whole spending -- it was risky to oppose him openly, because everybody knew that i also -- spending cuts. people like john foster talents were upset by all this. he did not like his penny pinching. he felt that doug winning the cold war took whatever it took in terms of spending money, but humphrey was a hard guy to dislike. a hard guy to stay mad at.

so humphrey tended to win these battles. humphrey's anti-spending campaign had eisenhower's full support. now he turned to wilson. if humphrey's career -- if his office took off like a rocket by contrast, wilsons in washington did not go well. it was partly a matter of style. he was relatively unpolished. especially for an executive. he had kind of a hard time finding the right words to express himself. especially in public. as you know, he barely got through his confirmation hearings because he initially refused to sell his stocks and bonds. we had a government salary coming in at 22,000 dollars. his annual salary and gm was

600,000 dollars or more. he was a bit nervous about giving up his money. in the process, he upset many congressmen with his stubbornness, and sometimes his unfortunate choice of words. the other problem with wilsons unorthodox approached management, which became a problem with pentagon right through the beginning. wilson was noted gm -- you never seemed to be in a hurry. he had a leisurely style. whether it was getting somewhere, getting to a meeting, making a decision. now he was in charge of an organization of a very different culture. coming up, here is a picture of wilson with his military staff. on the left, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, william redford.

eisenhower and wilson and omar bradley, general bradley on the right. these were wilson's new subordinates. and unfortunately the pentagon is a top down bureaucracy comprised primarily of army, navy and air force officers who are used to specific orders, not endless bull sessions. to be effective, it seemed that wilson would have to adapt to that culture, but he didn't. in fact, the service chiefs quickly learned -- they had a meeting late with him in the day. he had no sense of time. they would probably be there all night. they wanted him to be more crisp and precise of.

army officers and particular complained that he really did not understand the armies needs and requirements. when general said that he was uninformed and he remained so. not exactly a compliment. another big problem for eisenhower was -- for wilson, was that his boss -- eisenhower you far more about the pentagon than he did. it was almost a no win situation. so here is where humphrey wilson and eisenhower come together in a struggle that would last for several years. all of wilson's problems were compounded by humphrey's budgets cuts. because in the early 19 fifties, 70% federal spending was for defense. if you are going to cut the budget, it's going to have to be defense spending. another problem was that

eisenhower was just not inclined to believe pentagon arguments to keep its budgets out. as a career army guy he well knew that money was being wasted at the pentagon. he understood how parochial the army, navy and air force were. even though he had long encouraged them to think more in terms of national interests. would bothered him specially was redundancy. the fact that the services were all kind of working on similar capabilities that would overlap and result in a waste of money. this meant that eisenhower and humphrey expected wilson to go into the pentagon and not -- together right at the very beginning. before wilson had even learned would complex government agency, he had to come in and shake

things up, all the while trying to gain the trust of the admiral's and generals he worked for. as you can imagine, this made him feel just a bit insecure. so he began bothering eisenhower over and over again for meetings, taking up likes time to go over details -- that's your job! everyone around eisenhower knew that i's -- was a major time oyster for him. that he had a generous nature and had a hard time to say no. the other problem for wilson was counter pressure from congress. many congressman thought cutting military was just not very smart during a cold war. . in particular as time went along, senator stewart --

a former air force secretary was second guessing wilson at every turn. finally, as if matters could not get worse, or immediately get worse, a new policy came along called a new look, which many of you are familiar with. it emphasize nuclear weapons over dimensional weapons because they were cheaper. ike and his advisers felt that any confrontations with the russians would probably escalate into a nuclear exchange, therefore was -- standing armies were just not that necessary. both ike and humphrey loved the fact that the new look would save a lot of money. this gave wilson a whole new set of problems, because for one thing it would destabilize

the resource balance among the services. here for,'s army and navy always had kind of an equal share of resources, and now all of a sudden the air force budget would go way up and the army budget would be cut to the bone. so for the next several years the army fiercely fought the air force and wilson over this issue. coming up next is a graphic from the famous washington post cartoonist, back in the fifties and sixties named herb. he was probably the political cartoonist in america, the most famous one which show is wilson coming out of his office and watching the air force and army -- at each other. saying not in the corners, darn it! so this encapsulated the

problem that wilson had. now on the one hand you army was just protecting itself. it had some legitimate concerns. a foresaw correctly that the cold war would probably not involve a nuclear war or play out in the third world where conventional armies would be. and this seemed obvious to most congressional democrats as well so for the next few years this parade of army officer's famous ones like matthew ridgeway or world war ii hero maxwell taylor scam, with testify before congress. they would write books. they would make speeches saying that the new look was following -- that wilson was stupid to be behind it. now when the army went public doug -- eisenhower was absolutely

furious and nothing made him more angry and that kind of this loyaltywithout affecting my readiness but this made eisenhower even matter. and so now you see another you would sometimes go off message and tell them that you can't make any more cuts without affecting military readiness but this made eisenhower even matter. and so now you see another cartoon where you see john foster dulles, at the secretary of state walking with wilson who looks very downhearted and he saying the trouble with you charlie, is you say where you think. so things were not -- we're just not happy at all for wilson. and one of the problems was

that eisenhower continue to make negative comments about wilson over and over again. he would say things like he comes in here and sit here and ask me questions about the details in his own job. if he wasn't able to do them, he shouldn't have the job. then he would say, damage, how did a man as shallow as utterly wilson ever get to be president. on another occasion he says, well i think he considers himself a master of public relations. he seems to have no comprehension of all of the embarrassment of these remarks and cause. so this was wilsons, you know, burden. for two years, he went along like this and he fast forward during that time, the administration was successful

in attaining a couple of -- mainly because of defense cuts. so why he considered all the turmoil for the pentagon worthwhile. but when humphrey left office in 1957, he was still unhappy with his inability of cutting more. towards the end, his poor wife had had enough. here you see a picture coming up of eisenhower and the wilsons, jesse and his wife. and dressy went to a washington post columnist, which he probably shouldn't have done and she told him, it would be nice if mike would get a slap on the back once in awhile. he works seven days a week, she said, and i start back and listen to criticism until i am disgusted with it. so this was wilsons unhappy lot,

and on the other hand, while my story is -- one of my book is a story about wilson and his troubles, it's also an account of eisenhower and humphrey as recession fighters and i'll conclude with a little bit about that. and why is it important? why was it important for eisenhower to worry about a recession? it's easy to forget one of the main concerns of the incoming administration, but to prove to the country that republicans can handle the economy without falling into a depression, which herbert hoover had done 20 years before. this was really a sensitive issue for them. so the big question always was how much should the government do during a recession? you know, what kind of action

should they take? businessmen like humphrey said, don't do anything because the market will always fix itself. without any kind of tampering. besides that, when you do that, you ruin business confidence by, you know, by doing things to indicate that you are worried about the economy. but i knew this was a sensitive issue and he kept reassuring the country that he would use the full power of the government in dealing with any economic downturn, which was quite of course roosevelt had during the depression. while this was accuracy to the business community. especially to humphrey. and so, he will be some sort of tension if a recession did rear its ugly head. and sure enough, it did. and kim 1953 when it was the business turned into a recession and so, the trouble

began. and i should point out at this point that there were other players in economic policymaking besides humphrey and eisenhower. one of them was arthur burns. arthur burns is kind of a very well-known character in administrations to follow an issue, remember he went on to the nixon's economic adviser and back then he was under highs an hour, he was chief of council of economic advisers. he was an economist with a specialty and economic forecasting, which seemed the perfect fit for i concerns. now people were worried that burns would come across as too much of what they call the egg head back then. an intellectual. but instead, eisenhower is really enjoyed branches

presentations to the cabinet and they learned a lot from them. now another economic player in this was a guy named gave hobo, and he was kind of a white house insider. he was a speech writer for eisenhower during campaign in 1952 presidential campaign. a good friend of likes by that point, and he was known for giving sound practical advice so now burns and, hope though they were fairly conservative were much more liberal with humphrey in that fact guaranteed some conflict as they try to figure out how to deal with what turned out to be a pretty minor recession. in the book, i described the inconclusive and contentious debates that took place,

somebody that the cabinet would say, maybe we should do something and thought of public works program or recommend some tax cuts. and humphrey would always say no, no, if we do these things it will send a message to the business community that we're worried and our worried will be contagious. and these debates, eisenhower kind of flip back and forth and were unable to decide really what to do. he took one side and then the other side. but by default, he always seemed to side with humphrey, who always advised eisenhower to do nothing. in the meantime, behind the scenes, humphrey and burns more kind of curing on a quiet argument. burns wrote later that humphrey quid pound the table and raise his voice. he said that he'd run a big business and he wasn't going to have professors tell him how to run the treasury department.

burns and his staff didn't see rising a business as all that relevant. and they called humphrey and he cannot make illiterate, not only illiterate button educate will. so there was some tension between these guys. burns is successor was a guy named raymond who we see here in the middle. on the lefties sherman adams, the well-known staff chief for eisenhower and burns is on the right. but even roman criticized humphrey, but he said it more politely. he said his quick responses tended to be a little can this concerning to the academic reflective mind. so these kinds of feelings, it's a wonder that the strong disagreement that they're casually had did not make the newspapers but it was a

different era effects people moving loyal to him. he didn't have a going outside. and talking to the media, i except maybe the army officers that i mentioned. in the end, doing nothing turned out to be a successful course of non action. because the economy revived and it expanded rapidly, beginning in mid 1984. humphrey felt vindicated but hike arguably learned the wrong lesson that doing nothing will always be the right thing to do. and of course, a few years later in 1957, there were during a more serious recession. this was after humphrey had resigned. in the end, ike internalized most of humphrey's advice. man and after humphrey left, has treasury secretary, ike

appointed and even more conservative treasury secretary. and as time went along, inflation became eisenhower's main concern and cutting spending be continue to be as main weapon. now, eisenhower was always conflicted about this because he could always, you know, he was a guy who enjoyed being in the middle of the road all the time. and that meant that he always saw both sides of an issue. and here's a quote that clearly shows that i cut two minds about this issue. frankly, i'd rather see 1 million dollar of the defense budget, as much as i think it would be a mistake. so, you know, he was listening to people who wanted to spend more, he was listening to humphrey and he was trying hardest to bring the two

thoughts together. so let me give you a quick couple of takeaways from my research in three to four minutes that i have left. eisenhower, i think he paid a price for picking these men man to be in his cabinet. wilson was a liability and he couldn't really manage the pentagon. he made unfortunate comments. he monopolized the presidents time. but through it all, it appears that eisenhower never really considered replacing wilson. he must have reason that he thought wilson was doing the best trump that he could, breaking in a new defense secretary would be, you know, less efficient and continuing to when the old one. and maybe more importantly that team chemistry was important. he said at the beginning of

this administration that he took great care in picking this gang and he was very loyal to it. and so, here we have a picture coming up of eisenhower saying goodbye to wilson, clearly with some affection. and with some ambivalence. now with regard tom free, it was quite different. eisenhower was was -- when his term ended because they were very close. but i think i'm freeze obsession with inflation and spending has had a political price. this is certainly debatable. i should say at this point, looking back from the 21st century, his preoccupation with budget balancing and spending seems almost quaint. the u.s. budget deficit last

year was over 900 billion dollars and yet, i can humphrey were complaining about being a few million dollars in the red, which would be a rounding error by today's standards. but back in the fifties, budget balancing was republican orthodox-ing and you can't really be too critical of it. still, it can be argued and i kind of argue this in the book that the constant pressure to economize critique loyalist -- the development of new programs to address growing special problems. and after this put nick shock, you know, the russians put up their satellite in 1957, it raises the question of why new york seem to be falling behind russian science and technology. was it because of the lack of investment?

and is knocking down, i think that in the election of 1960, the ultimate question was, wouldn't more expensive government policy have led to a knicks and victory over kennedy in 1960? kennedy kept arguing that the country had to get moving again and in some ways, eisenhower's spending policies contributed to that perception. and as you, know nixon probably complaint eisenhower about refusing to stimulate the economy in a presidential election year. so, the thing is everybody was very loyal to eisenhower and the final takeaway that i have for this during the research is

that i rarely saw a criticism of eisenhower. in the press, both wilson and humphrey were strongly committed to a president that they both admired and i don't know have seen the picture of eisenhower me on the left richard nixon and then john foster dallas and maybe behind and eise everybody came together on occasions like this to honor the president. and there you see humphrey in any -- richard nixon, john foster behind and eisenhower accepting this president. charles wilson on the right. nay loved eisenhower. they were loyal to him. they were committed to his success. i think that speaks volumes about eisenhower. the kind of president he was.

he would motivate people. his ability to make practical decisions based on the needs of the moment rather than on some kind of ideology. so no i think i'll stop. i've been running on too long. i want to see if there are any questions. >> thank you, jim. thank you. >> the cia would be fine to, or my book, whatever you'd like. >> we'll give people a moment to think about why they'd like to ask. i will start it off just to give a little time to everyone. you did not mention anything about eisenhower's expenditures about the st. lawrence seaway or the interstate system. and those massive projects's the financial conservatism that you mentioned. >> interesting, the st. lawrence seaway was a big issue in the early administration. humphrey --

it's interesting, humphrey had a business interest and seeing the seaway built. because he had a contract to ship iron ore from one end of the st. lawrence seaway projected to the other. and so he was trying to lobby eisenhower to build it, but at the same time, not become too obvious about it. the st. lawrence seaway was an issue early in the administration. it was not completed until much later. but it did not become a big spending issue as i understand it. and the other issue you mentioned was -- >> the interstate. >> yes, the interstate system. interesting lee, humphrey was a big supporter of it. the reason was it could be done

primarily off budget. it was not a budget item. he decided to finance the interstate system through highway texas and so the whole thing got built without making a dent in the budget. for that reason, like humphrey, could really get behind it. >> thank you for that. if anyone would like to offer questions, turn your microphone off of mute from the white bar at the bottom of your screen. i'm going to change my screen so i can see everybody. i'm sure we have questions here. anyone? we are all shy, today, jim. >> i'd like to talk more about

the cia. >> okay let's do that. >> it's interesting. to work at the cia, i feel almost bad today, because the kind of job is fast disappearing. the kind of job where you go into one line of work and you stay there for your entire career, that just does not happen any longer. at least the cia -- it was a big family of security measures. and doors that were faults. classified material everywhere. precautions of various kinds. it was really kind of a wonderful world. i feel very lucky to have worked in an environment where your longevity was kind of

assured. you could stay there as long as you wanted. have a number of different kinds of jobs. a lot of variety with a 30 year career. -- the only career where that still possible is the government. maybe even less often now. >> we have a handful of employees that have been here their whole careers. we did get a question in the chat box. gordon asks, how about the mean of ike's speaks -- speech statement about the military complex. many different opinions on. that is yours? >> i forgot to mention that. i think eisenhower's experience is frustration. with the military budget running directly to his military industrial complex. he saw the military throughout his term that it's kind of

standing in the way -- standing in the way budget, cuts. this made him very frustrated. i think it led directly to his military industrial complex. common way to prevent from lobbying the public, you know? of course as the defense industry accumulated power washington -- more and more things are being contracted out to different companies around the country. they all had a vested interest in increased budgets as well. i think he correctly saw the military industrial complex as

something to be warned against. i think time showed that he was right. >> thank you. do we have any other questions? jim, why don't you tell us how to get your book? >> yes. of course the easy way would be amazon. amazon is selling all three of my books on my publisher. their website is mcfarland .com. but as i say, amazon's an easier way to get them. my website, which is currently being shown on the screen is called james worden .com. and on the website i don't have any information about eisenhower, because it's fairly recent. but it tells you a bit about me

and a bit about my approach to history. and something about my background at the cia. and a summary of my first two books. went on nixon that i mentioned. you're kind of looking at right now. the one right below it. big a depression era governor of california named james ralph, which i assume most of your audience would not be greatly interested in, but the common element in all of these books is the people i choose to work on and with have personalities that fed into the politics and leadership styles and sometimes their insecurities. and you had to focus on more

than what they said. you had to focus more on what kind of people they were. each of the people are right about kind of needs that criteria. >> i'm sure once we reopen we will have your book in our gift shop. >> good, i hope. so >> that will be another opportunity. big >> weeknights this month, we are featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend on c-span 3. friday night, we look at the cherokee nation. in the 18 thirties under president andrew jackson, the cherokee's were forcibly removed from their lands in the southeastern u.s. in white became known as the trail of tears. oklahoma university law professor lindsay robertson discusses the decisions issued by the u.s. supreme court in cases involving the cherokee nation. especially the role of chief justice ron marshall. watch friday beginning at 8 pm eastern and enjoy american

history tv every weekend on c-span 3. >> american history tv on c-span 3. every weekend, documenting america's story, funding for american history tv comes from these companies who support c-span 3 as a public service. >> c-span's long running series book notes is back as a podcast. footnotes plus. compelling interviews with others and historians. new episodes are available every tuesday. this week on the inaugural episode, the books notes plus documents presidents and sex scandals. she joins us with her book sex and presidents. subscribe wherever you get your podcasts and get information about all the