Good evening. Good evening. Welcome back. And thank you for your flexibility as we rescheduled this program, and we're delighted to see you all here. Thank you for coming. This caps off what I think has been a phenomenal year for the Friends of the LBJ Library. Thanks to you for making it a great year. We featured everything this year from the premiere of Hulu's new drama series, The Looming Tower, based on Lawrence Wright's award-winning book. We had Jake Tapper from CNN here, a look back at the pivotal year in 1968 with Bill Moyers, Tom Johnson, Linda Johnson-Rob, and the person who would become the new director of the LBJ Library, Kyle Longley. We had Olympic fencer Iptehaj Mohamed, best-selling author and historian, Daris Kearns-Goodwin, former CIA director John Brennan, and almost former California governor Jerry Brown. And we cap off the year with the incomparable Michael Beschloss, who will talk about his book, Presidents of War. If you are not a Friends member, we would love to have you join our ranks. Just as we had a great lineup this year, we're working on a great lineup for 2019. And I can tell you that sometimes it's hard for us to know in advance who's going to be here. We're very opportunistic, and we try to get folks to come, but sometimes it's last minute, so we can't always know who's going to be here, but I can promise you that we're working on some very big names who will be worth your time. Among others, next year we have coming Darren Walker, the president of the Ford Foundation, who will be here with Nancy Keane, a professor from the Harvard Business School, and they'll talk about character and leadership. We also will have the preview of a new PBS documentary on going to the moon, the Space Race of the 1960s. That'll be in May, so there's some wonderful things afoot for next year. I want to thank our sponsors, as always, for helping to make our year terrific, and they include St. David's Healthcare, the Moody Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and Tito's Handmade Vodka. You guys love the vodka! Introducing our special guest tonight is the chairman of the LBJ Foundation, Larry Temple. So ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming Larry Temple. Before introducing our guest tonight, I want to acknowledge the passing and pay tribute to President George H.W. Bush. There always was a personal friendship, as well as mutual respect, between George H.W. and Barbara Bush on the one hand, and Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson on the other hand. Over the strong opposition of his own party in Texas, Congressman George H.W. Bush courageously voted for LBJ's Fair Housing Act in 1968, the last critical part of President Johnson's Civil Rights legislation. When asked why he cast that controversial vote, Congressman Bush said, well, it was just the right thing to do. When then and Lady Bird Johnson left Washington to return to Texas on January 20, 1969, just a few hours after the inauguration of President Nixon, every Republican except one was downtown celebrating the new president. The one exception was Congressman George H.W. Bush, who was at Andrews Air Force Base, saying goodbye to the Johnson's. You'll see a photograph of that goodbye being shown on the wall behind me. When asked why he had come to Andrews instead of attending the inaugural parade for Richard Nixon, Congressman Bush said, well, he's my friend and my president and he's leaving town. I didn't want him to leave town without my being here and paying my respect to him. Now, how is that for grace, civility, decency and friendship? The highest award that the LBJ Foundation gives is its Liberty and Justice for All Award. We give it to individuals who in their own time and in their own way have carried on the legacy of Lyndon Johnson to open the doors of opportunity for all of our citizens to enjoy the privileges and protections that this great country offers. In 2013, we gave that award to President George H.W. Bush in recognition, at least in part, for his leadership in the passage of the Americans with Disability Act. I think you're viewing there on the wall behind me a photograph of that award that was presented to President Bush. To recognize a meaningful, impactful, and truly remarkable life, I want to ask for a round of applause to pay tribute to President George H.W. Bush. Thank you. Now, on to tonight's program. Michael Besloss has been proclaimed by Newsweek as, quote, the nation's leading presidential historian, close quote, and it would be hard to find anyone who disagrees. He has written 10 books on American presidents. He is NBC News presidential historian and is frequently seen on PBS and other channels. The number of presidents about who Michael has researched and written puts a reader in awe. In just one book, Presidential Courage, Michael Besloss provides expert and unique insights on the lives and legacies, listen to this, George Washington, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. In his latest and current book, Presidents of War, and he'll talk about that tonight, Michael chronicles the wartime roles of President Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Michael Besloss invested 10 years to complete his research and writing of this compelling book. He's also written other books about presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and John Kennedy. Now just think for a minute what Michael Besloss has done. We've had 45 presidents in the history of this country. Michael Besloss has written books on 19 of those presidents, almost half of the total presidents. He's written public articles on even more. At this library, we are particularly captivated by his two books on the LBJ telephone tapes. Taking charge covers the period from 1963 through the election in 1964. Reaching for Glory covers the last part of 1964 and all of 1965. If you've not read those books, I would encourage you to do so because Michael Besloss uses President Johnson's own conversations to tell the story of those periods in a very compelling way. All I can say about Michael Besloss is, what a historian, what a writer. He has no peer on the public stage today. Moreover, as I've known him for over 30 years, and I can say without a doubt, in addition to being a man of prolific accomplishment, he has no ego. He is a modest man. What you think you see on television is what he really is. He's a great man, but he's also a good man, and that combination doesn't always go together. Michael Besloss gives us valuable and beneficial counsel here at the library on all occasions. He gave us great help when we renovated the exhibit a few years ago. So it's a treat to welcome him back to the stage tonight. So please welcome our guest star, Michael Besloss, and Mark Upgrove, who will conduct the conversation with him tonight. Michael. Michael, welcome back. Thank you. After hearing what Larry said, I should probably leave now because your opinion of me is only going to go down the more I speak. Thank you all for being here, and especially since we had to redo the night. Thank you, especially. We had to redo the night, of course, because of the passing of George H.W. Bush, who Larry just paid tribute to. I thought, why don't we start with just how should we remember? Michael covered the funerals of President Bush in Washington and in Houston for NBC. How should we remember George Bush? Well, I think it's a really good example. I think you'd agree with this about everyone able to hear, by the way, in the back, in the very back. Say a couple of hands. I can't improve the content, but at least I can improve the volume if it's necessary from me. I think it's a very good example of the way that history is supposed to work because Mark and I will always say that presidents do not look the same way 30 years or more after they serve as they do at the time while they're sitting in the White House. And I think George H.W. Bush is a great example of that because anyone here who can remember 1993, when he left the White House, there were a lot of people writing, he must not have been a very good president because he couldn't even manage to get re-elected. This is not me talking. This is journalists and others at the time who just managed the economy, or yes, he helped to end the Cold War, but who cares about that anymore? You know, this is what really was said at the time, and here we are 25 years later. And because of some information that's come out since 1993, but more importantly because of the passage of time, we see him in a very different way. Above all, in my view, this was the guy who not only presided over the Cold War, but helped it to end in a way that any other president from Harry Truman on would have only dreamt of. They never dreamt that it would end so quickly and without firing a shot. And without George Bush's enormous ability to build relationships of trust, as he did with Mikhail Gorbachev, that might not have happened if almost anyone else had been president. And Larry mentioned your humility, but George Herbert Walker Bush's humility really came into play in the peaceful resolution to the Cold War. Talk about that. Sure. And Larry was nice enough to mention all these books I wrote. I actually wrote a book with Stroh Tau, but on the end of the Cold War, and we interviewed a lot of the Bush people and some of those around Gorbachev in the early 90s. And had almost anyone else been president, they would have given in to the advice of White House aides who said, you know, they just opened the Berlin Wall or Eastern Europe has fled the Soviet Union or Germany has reunified within NATO, the president should take a victory lap, maybe go to the Berlin Wall and say this is a triumph for the United States. Bush diplomatically knew that that would scare Gorbachev away from making any other concessions and also it just was not in his nature to crow. Right. It amazed me, Michael, that when he left the White House in 1993, he lamented that Americans didn't know his heartbeat. Right. And when we celebrated his life last week, it was really all about heartbeat. And I think almost more than any single accomplishment of his presidency he will be remembered for his character. I think he will be remembered for his character at a time that presidential character was sort of taken for granted. Yeah.  Right. And that's one thing. But the other thing that just drives you crazy is that you're right, he didn't have the ability to tout his own accomplishments. Had he been a little bit better than that at that, for instance in 1992, when he was running, he might have explained that, yes, we've been through a recession, but the economy is getting better. And oddly enough, his virtue was also his flaw, which was because he was modest and because I'm sure you heard this at least 90 times during the coverage of George Bush during this week. His mother always told him, don't talk about yourself. And so as a result, it was extremely hard for him to, during a campaign, talk about the accomplishments that really did deserve to be praised. And you write an awful lot about presidential character in Presidents of War and we'll talk about that. But we've been trying to get you here for a good long time and a lot of us have been anticipating this book. You have a lot, many fans, as you can see here in this. This was a decade in the making. Right, you all took a real risk inviting me here. I mean, I spent 10 years writing the 750 page book. Who knows how long I might speak tonight. You may be here at 2 a.m. and I'll still be going. I promise not. I said all I had to say in the book. If it's a filibuster, we're going to invoke cloture. No. In fact, before we go on, can I tell one more Bush story which I think people don't know? Barbara Bush once told me, those of you who know the last full day before Lyndon Johnson became President was November 21st, 1963. And President Kennedy and President Johnson were together in Texas. They were in San Antonio first and then they flew to Houston and they went to the Rice Hotel. President Kennedy spoke at a testimonial dinner. But Barbara Bush told me that when JFK and Jackie and the Johnsons came from the airport to Houston to the Rice Hotel, she was there in the crowd cheering. And it tells you so much about how things have changed because not only was she a Republican, she was, you know, no Kennedy supporter particularly, although, you know, she liked them personally. But this was November of 1963. Her husband George was going to run for the Senate in Texas as a Republican in 1964 against Ralph Yardborough, right? So if you can just think how different things were in those days, she didn't do it because she was going to be photographed because I don't think she was. And I actually, after she told me that, I looked to see if there was any historical reference to that and I wasn't able to find one. But the wife of the Republican candidate going to cheer the Democratic president who was running for reelection and as she told me, she said, it's just the way things were done in those days. How different we have become and I really hope that those days come back again. Yeah. Sorry for the detour. Not at all. So Michael, what made you want to write Presidents of War? Well, it's about, the book is about eight or nine presidents who waged major wars in American history and I was really curious, and this is for years before I actually came to write it, what do they have in common because they had this one experience that no one else has ever had which is to send large numbers of Americans into harm's way in a major war. And it turned out there were a number of things that had in common. One was every single one of them became more religious. Lyndon Johnson, who, those here who knew him, Larry and a few others, I think you would probably agree with me that he was disciples of Christ. He certainly went to church. He didn't talk about it as a large force in his life. But I remember talking to Lady Bird Johnson late in her life and she said that during the late years of the Vietnam War, LBJ was so tortured by the experience that he found comfort in religion and she thought for the first time in a really notable way. And he went with Lucy to the Catholic Church that she went to in Southwest Washington and Mrs. Johnson said, during those days it would not have surprised me a bit if Lyndon had become a Catholic because this person who she saw as someone who did not have deep spiritual belief, she felt, suddenly felt that having this experience of waging a war with major casualties and trauma and all the division in this country that we know that there was, this was something that he looked to comfort himself. Abraham Lincoln, when he was a young man, was thought of as a scoffer at religion, perhaps an agnostic, some thought an atheist. And when he was a war president late in the Civil War, a friend from Illinois came and found him reading the Bible and was astounded and Lincoln said, I can't imagine that any president would go through this horrible experience without finding some comfort in religion. So they become more religious. They all have empathy. Anyone who listens to those tapes of LBJ waiting for a plane to return from North Vietnam from a bombing run know the kind of empathy he had that as the war went on, as the casualties rose, it was such torture for him. Abraham Lincoln never wanted to get too distant from the deaths of the soldiers. Same thing with LBJ. In Lincoln's case, there were so many people getting killed that Lincoln's people came to him and said, we've got to build a new national cemetery. Where do you want it? And Lincoln said, build it near my summer home because I want all the time to see those Union graves being dug. It's going to be intensely painful to me, but I want to see the consequences of these terrible decisions that I'm making. He said to another friend, can you imagine that I, who cannot stand to watch a chicken being slaughtered, I'm responsible for generating oceans of blood? So empathy is another thing they had in common. Another thing is that every single one of them was married to a strong woman who made the difference. Someday I hope to come back and talk about a president who was married to a strong man who made all the difference. Maybe someday. Maybe not a war president, but a president of some kind. But anyone who thinks that Lady Bird Johnson did not have a lot to do with Lyndon Johnson's leadership in the 1960s has a very big misapprehension. She used to talk about these years.  She talked of being on a train between New York and Washington and seeing another train going by and she saw it was carrying cargo and then with a shutter she realized it was coffins of young men coming back from Vietnam. Eleanor Roosevelt. 1942, after Pearl Harbor, a lot of people were saying to FDR for security reasons you got to send the Japanese-Americans to internment camps and she said absolutely not and then one day he did it and she was so angry that some of the people who knew her felt that the marriage never quite was the same after that and you will know that much of World War II she kept her distance from him even though he was very lonely and she wanted her to spend more time at home. So those are a few of the things that they had biographically in common but the other thing is that 200 years that was a time where at the beginning founders wrote the Constitution and they wanted wars to be declared by Congress. Still isn't the Constitution last I checked but over 200 years and the experience of all these eight or nine presidents to be the case that any president can get us involved in a major war almost single-handedly, almost overnight. Last time Congress declared a war anyone know or want to raise a hand? What year? May I read your, this is from the preface. Okay. I'll just not to preserve the suspense, 1942. Right. This is a couple of wars since then. And you reveal that answer in the preface. Let me read what Michael has written as a predicate to the book. I hope you don't find that I got the date wrong, Mark. No, you passed. All right. With the truth. When Ronald Reagan's autobiography came out do you think maybe he wrote three words of it? So he went to the publisher there were sales people there and he held it up for photographers and said I hear it's a great book I might even read it sometime. I did write this one. And among the things you wrote includes this passage from the preface. With the two frequent acquiescence of Congress chief executives have seized for themselves the power to launch large conflicts almost on their own authority. It is telling that the last time a president asked Congress to declare war was 1942 were the founders to come back they would probably be astonished and chagrined to discover that in spite of their ardent strivings the life or death of much of the human race has now come to depend on the character of the single person who happens to be the president of the United States. Do you want to write that again? Read that again. Have a nice evening everybody. But what becomes very clear is the executive branch throughout the course of our history gets stronger and stronger with the power of the president of the United States and Congress seems to willingly capitulate, willingly cede power to the president. Why has that happened? Well one reason is going all the way back to James Madison presidents have a habit of saying you criticize my war leadership you're criticizing the soldiers in battle and that's a pretty big restraint on members of Congress they don't want to seem to be criticizing soldiers and the other thing is that when we are at war in general there is a feeling that to criticize the president may in some ways constrain the war effort and I think it's exactly the opposite because the founders of this country they wanted us to criticize criticism and protest to my mind the highest forms of patriotism. Benjamin Franklin said our critic is our friend and the reason was because no one criticized the British king and our founders wanted to create a country that was different from that the whole idea was that if you had a president, if you had members of Congress we would all be criticizing them all the time that would make them better presidents and better members of Congress and so that you're expressing yourself as a citizen that way so for congressional leaders to restrain themselves especially in wartime is not a great thing and I should say if I were a president I would hate to be criticized I'd hate to be criticized by my congressional leaders I would hate to be criticized by the press but it's part of what makes us great as a system So is the weakening of Congress irrevocable or do you envision a time when Congress becomes more robust? I think they have to become more robust and it goes back I mean it really goes back this book starts with James Madison but second president I deal with is James Polk who has a little Texas history and Polk in the late 1840s he wanted a war with Mexico you all know and the problem was there wasn't an imminent reason for a war with Mexico so Polk created a border skirmish Texas border, the contested Texas border with Mexico using Zachary Taylor's troops a minor skirmish the Mexicans were provoked they fired back and so Polk while telling untruths to his secretary of state and leaders of Congress Polk went to Congress and said I need a major war against Mexico in response to this skirmish what this was actually about was that Polk wanted about nearly a million square miles of Mexican territory to be added to the United States so we could become a continental nation from Atlantic to Pacific wonderful aim but he should have told the truth about it and also the not so wonderful part of it is he wanted most or all this to be slave territory he was a slave holder but the point is that what it did was it gave Polk the incentive to go to Congress and do this and that licensed others that led to McKinley the sinking of the Maine and the Maine was sunk by it would be nice to think that it was Spain but it was actually a boiler accident but you can't go to war against boilers so he went to war against Spain and so the point is that there is a history of this that Congress should be a little bit more firm and resistive you start as you mentioned with the war of 1812 and you write that the war of 1812 receded into history it would have been healthier had Americans viewed it as a cautionary tale which should have made them skeptical skeptical of future presidents who called them to battle we did not heed that tale that's it because what was the most unpopular war in our history it was not Vietnam it was the war of 1812 New England almost seceded over it almost half the Congress was against it at the beginning it was a war that was waged not for our immediate defense which is what the founders had told us we had to do but it had two big war aims one was stop the British from bothering our ships the other was conquer Canada anyone been to Canada lately I think it's still independent at least last I checked so we didn't even fulfill our war aims and so since we didn't guess who was the first president to lose the war a war was not Richard Nixon it was James Madison but because Madison was able to spin 1812 into a victory because of these wonderful scenes you know don't give up the ship and Andrew Jackson at New Orleans and the Star Spangled Banner I mean I'm a part of this cover of my book has the Star Spangled Banner well there it is it's hard to see but you see some flame here that's the rockets red glare there so I'm helping with this myth too I mean that was a victory but people think that because of all this that 1812 was a glorious moment as it was it was a defeat wildly unpopular and the problem is that when we do not remember moments in our history that should be cautionary tales where things did not go so well we repeat the same mistakes and one of those who thought that 1812 was one of the biggest moments in our history was James Polk I was surprised at the portrait that you render of James Madison or the father of our constitution talk about him as a commander in chief the short version is great founder bad war president everyone can go off to dinner now wonderful scholar but an extremely weak man and he was pushed to go to war against England and he did not have the strength to resist it and he also liked being a war president he had this little bi-corn hat with a feather and he had a gleaming silver sword at his side there are a lot of presidents who want to go to war and they will enhance their image not a very good thing I'm going to talk about several of the people that you cover in this book but the one who is indisputably great is Abraham Lincoln and you write of Lincoln to wage the most momentous war that Americans had ever fought under any chief executive Abraham Lincoln had made himself by far the most powerful president that people of the union had ever seen convinced that the entire democratic venture was in danger he grabbed for himself unprecedented authority that made him look like a despot but the crucial fact is that he did so within the democratic process and congress and courts for the most part affirmed him all true and nor did he show a lust for power this was someone who never did this because he wanted to be a powerful figure and he suspended habeas corpus he declared martial law he did other things that in any other circumstance we would find horrible but he felt that the union was in danger and if it took those things to do it he would do them and wait for the courts to rule one way or the other and the same thing with the congress and may have been necessary to save the union Lincoln always said I did martial law when I did habeas corpus I did not intend this to be a precedent for later presidents but that's a problem because they always take it as a precedent and example of that if you read the memoirs of Richard Nixon he's talking about some of his excesses during the Vietnam war violations of civil liberties and he literally goes on to write Lincoln was a war president I was a war president and so when a president does something like this even Lincoln you have to always keep in mind that you may be opening the way for abuses of power later on he changes and he grows in office what are the inflection points of his presidency the main thing is when Lincoln became president he was trying to keep the border states where they should be and he was trying not to inflame people who did not have his own feelings about slavery so he talked about the reason for the civil war almost in legal terms I was sworn to defend the constitution and this is an illegal insurrection against the union that I have to correct and it wasn't working and even he knew that it wasn't so after about a year and a half it's like the moment in the Wizard of Oz that goes from black and white to color Lincoln starts really saying what's in his heart and he sort of junks all this stuff and he says this is really a war against the evil of slavery and once he begins to talk about the civil war in moral terms not only is it a release for him and he becomes a more effective leader but also the war effort by the north takes on the texture of a crusade so actually it was a war measure without to be the right thing to do help to win the war.  Yeah it was that the legalistic approach was not working that by then he had the luxury of being able to talk about morality but also he realized he once said I'm going to go down in history not as the leader of a successful army but as the liberator of a race and that was in him in 1864 he was told he was going to lose the election unless he canceled the emancipation proclamation which he thought of doing because he wanted to win and finally decided to stick with it but Lincoln had the quality that alas George H.W. Bush did not have Lincoln was able to explain unpopular decisions so he said to northern Americans you may worry about the emancipation maybe it's you think it's extending the war but when I declared it about 100,000 African Americans came from the south of the north they're working hard in our union war effort if I canceled it they might go back or they might stop working and we would lose that's the quality he had helped us to win the war and just as he's battling the Confederate states he's also battling his own demons and right Lincoln's strength amid his own trial by fire was all the more admirable in light of his tendency toward depression talk about how that came to bear Michael and his presidency he suffered deeply from depression and if you have a disposition toward depression what do you think the effect is of making decisions that kill hundreds of thousands of young men and that was with him every day the presidency during the war and one of the most poignant things is the last day of his life he and Mary go for a carriage ride and he says to her the war is over we now have to be happier and that evening he was assassinated Lincoln is so storied what is the greatest misconception that we have of him that this was not a politician that this was some holy figure and I come from Illinois this is my homeboy in fact I've told the story before but I got into this line of work because I was taken to the Lincoln sites in Springfield when I was about seven and shown where Lincoln read to his children and I asked the guide when Lincoln's children misbehaved and he spanked them and he said no Lincoln didn't believe in discipline let those brats run wild through this house and at that moment Lincoln became my man I began reading about Lincoln and other presidents and literally that's why I'm doing this so I've got an investment in Lincoln but the reason he was a great president was because he understood the system he understood politics and more than anything else he understood history Harry Truman once said how anyone could be president without being interested in history he once said he said that not every reader will be a leader but every leader must be a reader and in Truman's case and it was also true of Lincoln Truman said I had to make all these tough decisions firing MacArthur and using atomic weapons in Japan and so on and the book that influenced him more than any other was a book that he had read as a young man had the horrible title published I think 1895 was called Great Men and Famous Women the premise that women had no hope of being great only famous and subtitle was from Nebuchadnezzar to Sarah Bernhard so covered this wide swath of human experience but the point is that he felt that that was an indispensable element of his leadership the same thing with Lincoln Lincoln had maybe a year and a half of formal education and even that is a generous estimate so that when he became president and had to be an active commander in chief he sent to the Library of Congress for books on military history and read them I'm going to skip ahead to Woodrow Wilson for a moment and just as I was surprised at the portrait of James Madison I was a little surprised by the portrait of Woodrow Wilson are there any Wilson descendants in the hall this is for my own protection any members of the Wilson Anti-Defamation League I think we're cool go ahead there's one delicious anecdote in the book that I had never read before but after King George met Woodrow Wilson at Buckingham Palace he tells an aide I could not bear him an entirely cold academic professor an odious man was that me saying that or was that the king I was going to say your portrait of Wilson is not much different than that of King George's I do not warm up much to Woodrow Wilson number one he was a rank racist and he was not a man of his time his predecessors Taft and TR and Harding his successor were much more progressive on civil rights and race relations and the role of the right of every American to have equal opportunity and that's something that I'm amazed that Wilson's reputation has survived as long as it has with that being a central feature of his leadership of reforms during the first term to my mind fairly dreadful war president a couple of reasons one is he did very little to explain to Americans why they were at war in Europe I mean you know if you have Woodrow Wilson there are a lot of things you're not getting at least you think you're going to be getting eloquent speeches he spent most of that time holed up in the White House in 1916 was re-elected on the basis of a lie what was his re-election slogan in 1916 anyone he kept us out of war exactly well he knew privately that if he was re-elected he was going to be taking us into a war in about three days nonetheless this academic who had written for decades about the importance of honesty and integrity and public life is perfectly happy to use a lie to get re-elected and it's even worse because 1916 Wilson was barely re-elected by the votes of California and more specifically by the votes of women in California women could vote in California in 1916 and they did surveys of the women why were they for Wilson well we love Wilson because his slogan tells us that he will keep us out of war and we love peace idealistic women voters gave Woodrow Wilson his second term on the basis of a lie so there's an element of hypocrisy there that I find hard to live with and the other thing is that you have to rate a president in terms of results and we lost 116,000 Americans in World War I ferocious casualty rate more than the Civil War but at the end of our involvement World War I after the victory which was 100 years ago last month Wilson said the reason for this is to make the world safer democracy and we'll do it with a world organization called the League of Nations and the United States will be the cornerstone at which point he went off to Europe for about 6 months so just in terms of political malpractice if you're at the end of a war with Americans and particularly the Senate to accept the League of Nations and there's justifiable worry about the fact that if we join this world organization maybe we will lose control over our own armed forces the League of Nations will make those decisions the president should be there at the front of the debate saying this is why it's a good thing for the country instead Wilson was so self-obsessed a friend who was a Wilson scholar read my book and manuscript and one of his comments in the margin was would you at least mind taking out the words conceded and messianic so you'll see which way I'm going he thought only he could negotiate at Paris that no one else was up to his brilliant skills and so he's in Paris for 6 months primitive communications instead the debate over the League of Nations is overwhelmed by its enemies beginning with Henry Cabot Lodge so that by the time Wilson got back no American involvement in the League of Nations which leads to the rise of World War II a settlement that leads to the rise of Adolf Hitler and then finally in the late 1930s when FDR was trying desperately to get Americans to rearm so that if we had to get involved in a war against Hitler and the Japanese we would be prepared guess what was his biggest obstacle Woodrow Wilson people say we're afraid that you're another Wilson who's going to drag us into another war where over 100,000 Americans are going to die for nothing a war that didn't achieve what Wilson promised we're only lucky that Roosevelt was able to overcome the legacy of Woodrow Wilson and rearm in the nick of time so no I'm not a huge fan of Woodrow Wilson I apologize to any family members who are here talk about his he suffers a stroke talk about those very dark days in the White House where his wife has to take up the mantle of the presidency of the United States she did and she was a strong woman and we are mainly lucky that she did but one reason that she did was that Wilson who was conscious and basically alert was so unwilling to share power that when his secretary of state and vice president dared to convene the cabinet in the absence of the great man who was lying in bed upstairs he fired the secretary of state couldn't fire his vice president would have done that too but the point is that there was a monumental realism here that I think flawed and was a war president let me move on to Franklin Roosevelt who gets a significantly better rating from Michael Beschloss this is a passage opposite end of the scale this is a passage from the book the 32nd president deserves the verdict of the New York Times rendered the morning after his death that quote, men will thank God on their knees a hundred years from now that Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House it is difficult to imagine any other American leader of that generation guiding with such success a resistant nation toward intervention and ultimate victory in this most momentous of all histories wars as well as taking Americans into a post war assembly that would strive to enforce the peace Franklin Roosevelt such an effective commander in chief one reason was because he had almost seen it all before because Roosevelt was Wilson's assistant secretary of the Navy so he watched Wilson very closely watched his mistakes and in case there were mistakes that young FDR did not notice FDR was in constant touch with his distant cousin his wife's uncle FDR Roosevelt who was still alive hated Wilson and basically all the time was whispering into FDR's ear he's doing this wrong, he's doing that wrong when you're president Franklin don't do it this way so the result was that when World War II began in 1939 Roosevelt meets with his cabinet and I quote from this in the book he says, I have this strange feeling that he's been through it all before and he really had so that really helped the other thing that Roosevelt was always aware of and this is a theme of the book is that in America any president but particularly a president of war has to be a moral leader you know Lincoln was a great civil war president because that was a moral cause and FDR understood the same thing that guess what book he was reading in 1940 just pure luck he's reading Carl Sandberg's account of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War which made the point that if you're running a war you'd better be a war leader don't know how much Roosevelt was influenced by that but beginning of 1941 Roosevelt gives his State of the Union and what is he talking about he's saying that at the end of the war what's now happening we must fight for the four freedoms you know a moral cause what keeps him going this is a president who seizes through the Great Depression the worst economic disaster in our history and that goes headlong into the most momentous war in our history so what keeps Franklin Roosevelt going during those very dark times he was a leader and he was perfectly suited for that kind the time was perfectly suited for his kind of activist leadership I often think what if Roosevelt had been present during the 1920s a time when Americans didn't want a strong president they didn't want a strong foreign policy around the world they didn't want a strong government getting involved in the private economy you know Roosevelt would have been so frustrated he would have gotten into a fight with Congress that might have been so enormous that it might have led to a constitutional confrontation you know there is something to the idea that the leader has to sort of fit the time and this is someone who was basically sort of built for crisis and he had two of the greatest crises of course in American history depression and global war I want to go back to something that you talked about earlier the incarceration of Japanese Americans one of the two big flaws in his war leadership the other being in my view I think that Roosevelt could have done more to thwart the Holocaust so talk about let's start with the incarceration and I was fascinated because I didn't realize I want to you mentioned Eleanor Roosevelt's objection to this policy and you write Eleanor Roosevelt was shocked by her husband's decision she had assured Americans by radio that no law abiding aliens of any nationality would be discriminated against by the government you write then when the president decided to exile Japanese Americans she was caught by surprise and she was appalled so you have this great moral figure and he makes this decision why why did he make the decision to in turn Japanese Americans I don't agree with this argument but this is the argument he would make he said you know he would say he had to operate assuming the worst case and the worst case even it was only rumor was that there might be agents among Japanese Americans and so he would say he took the most extreme position possible I believe that there were people at the time who felt strongly about civil liberties and realized that that was a bridge too far that was too much or giving up too much of what America should be even if there are people saying that this will be more of a defense against possible internal enemies and by the laws of history it was a horrible mistake and it was an atrocity for him to have done that a blot on his war leadership and the same I wrote another book on this called the fact that I felt that Roosevelt could have done more about the Holocaust learned about it much earlier in World War II then was thought to be at the time could have spoken against it and particularly in 1944 could have done things like bombing the rail lines in the camps which Winston Churchill was in favor of so if you're looking at this in terms of moral leadership the most important thing to know is that FDR got the United States involved in World War II and helped to win that's a huge moral statement but these are things that could have made him a better war leader and war leader we sit in the Lyndon Johnson Presidential Library talk about what is your assessment of Lyndon Johnson as a commander in chief in the Vietnam War well I think I'd start the Wall Street Journal wrote about my book saying that I write about LBJ with a frustrated sympathy and I think that about does it sympathy for the situation that he was in which is almost unbelievable for any commander in chief and you listen to LBJ on the tapes a couple of moments one is spring of 1964 he says for instance what does Vietnam mean to me what does it mean to this country people in this country don't even know where it is why are people calling on me to make that kind of commitment and he's talking to the great Richard Russell the senator from Georgia chairman of the Armed Services Committee Mr. Defense his mentor in the Senate and otherwise and Russell says to LBJ spring of 1964 I think you ought to get out of there if you get involved in this war in Vietnam deeply this is my language it's not verbatim he says it'll take 10 years it'll kill 50,000 Americans and we will not win it's going to be like Korea and I heard that at the time when I was listening to that for the first time and made me wish that I could go back through time and say listen to your mentor he's got it right he's really predicting what might happen it was something he felt he could not do so that's one moment another is August of 1964 the time of the Gulf of Tonkin again you look at history it has so much to do sometimes the accident of the calendar that was the month that he was first month he was running for a full month against Barry Goldwater who was charging him with being too soft in foreign policy particularly on Vietnam so he's called by Robert McNamara who says there's a report of an attack on American ship and the Gulf of Tonkin and he feels compelled to respond with an attack on the north and ask Congress for a Gulf of Tonkin resolution which both he and Richard Nixon use to wage the Vietnam War for the next nine years and then 1965 you know your LBJ and one thing I love about the new version of the museum in this library is it's so oriented toward the difficult decisions that he had to make in the history of the presidency I can't think of a more difficult one than the one I'm about to describe LBJ it's the beginning of 1965 you've got this unbelievably large majority in the House and the Senate as a result of the landslide of 1964 and you LBJ think that you've got about six months to pass things like Medicare, voting rights aid to education all the foundation stones of the great society he felt that he had about six months to pass these of the Congress after that would get rebellious and tired so just at the beginning of these six months in January of 1965 as fate would have it he has to decide do you escalate in Vietnam or do you not from his point of view if you do not escalate in Vietnam you're going to be torn apart by the Republican party who's going to say that you were soft and communism and this weakness which discredits you as a leader voters should also think that it discredits these other crazy programs of yours like Medicare and education voting rights and so on so he was in an extreme vice the other thing he had was he had a secretary of defense who like Woodrow Wilson is not my favorite Robert McNamara who again it's one of the misfortunes in American history I believe that McNamara was his secretary of defense at the beginning of 1965 one thing that John Connolly recommended to LBJ that he do that LBJ did not take his advice and always regretted it was John Connolly you know his great I'd say Larry on and off friend but maybe on wouldn't you say and confident they loved each other for decades fought but mainly loved each other like a little brother or almost like two scorpions sometimes not that not that either of them ever had scorpion like qualities but the thing is that Connolly in 1964 said LBJ gracious thing that you did keeping on the Kennedy staff and cabinet you had to do it after the assassination but after you re-elected with a landslide it's now the Johnson presidency you should fire them all and you should hire people who are loyal unquestionably to you LBJ did not do it and he told a number of people I've talked to at the end of his life it's one of the biggest mistakes I ever made so at the beginning of 1965 it's on these tapes McNamara is telling LBJ LBJ had enormous I believe unwarranted enormous respect for McNamara who is saying you must go deeply into Vietnam I was president of Kennedy's defense secretary he would have you don't do this you're going to be betraying the Kennedy legacy also with a subtle threat that if he does not escalate guess who's going to be running around quietly telling everyone LBJ is letting JFK down which is not something you'd want to do a year after the assassination and plus there's a CETO treaty and so forth so he's getting to my mind bad advice which is wildly ironic because Robert McNamara stood on this very stage and said that John F. Kennedy would have waged the war differently this is why I am the opposite of a Robert McNamara fan he's in the Woodrow Wilson category yeah I guess on my my dyslycometer I think McNamara and Wilson would be both right up there and the other thing alright I wouldn't have gone on as long as you're opening the door to this anyone read McNamara's book in which he makes that statement JFK by then is the dove who never would have escalated in Vietnam problem with McNamara is that he didn't realize that when he published that book that LBJ had taped so many of their conversations in private and so the result is you listen to McNamara talking to Johnson he's saying you have to escalate and get in one of the reasons why the brilliant Lyndon Baines Johnson taped his conversations was because he was afraid that people with whom he dealt would later on claim that they gave him different advice from the advice that they gave him so thank God for that and you can see what McNamara's role was here another thing he said when that book came out was we were all to blame for Vietnam well you know I was 7 years old I was not to blame when I was brought up by my parents they told me to take personal responsibility for my decisions I think he got different advice perhaps in his household so in any case I'm trying to reconstruct the situation that LBJ was in and so LBJ who is this deeply sensitive human being who had been director of the national youth administration in 1935 here in Texas that's what he loved he loved young people suddenly he's been turned into their executioner and if you ask me why LBJ was so tortured by the experience of being a war leader as Lady Bird described to me I would say one reason is the number of young Americans he was putting in harm's way but even more than that the fact that he knew what had led to this and he knew that from the beginning and we know this from the tapes that it was very likely a war so if you ask me why he was suffering and this only speaks well for him he was suffering because there were so many boys dying but he was suffering even more because he knew that they were dying in a cause that would be very hard to win but why does he stay the course there's thunder's pressure for him to get out and there's great speculation about why he stays in why in your view does he pursue this I think he began to personalize it as you get to 66 and 67 the people in the Senate who were attacking him it was almost you know I'm just going to show them that we're going to build this through and win but the other thing it was Robert McNamara's doctrine of graduated response which was you begin with a small force if that doesn't work you escalate it you keep on pressure on the North Vietnamese and at some point mathematically you'll reach the point where the North Vietnamese cave McNamara did not realize that mathematics don't necessarily explain the Vietnamese people who for centuries had been expert at you know defying conquerors who tried to take over their country but the one lovely story is one that when my book came out it was on the front page of the book of the North Vietnamese and it was published four times largely thanks to two people one is our friend Larry Temple who advised me I think we can give Larry another hand for that because it really does remind us of the great side of LBJ as a war leader and the other was all of our friend and what the story was is we found the final sort of pieces of this it had been known that William Westmoreland the commander in Vietnam was thinking of asking for tactical nuclear weapons which he writes about in his memoirs over later years more and more documents came open including ones in the Johnson Library that we talked about a couple years ago but if you look at the documents as is often the case they don't tell the full story because what the documents show is that Westmoreland in 1968 asked for the possibility of considering moving nuclear weapons to South Vietnam and using them if necessary to avert defeat and another document comes back from Washington saying no don't do that fine what we didn't have was an involvement of the president here and there's a reason for that LBJ did not want it known that he was the one turning this down it was an election year he didn't want republicans on the hill saying LBJ is turning down the advice of his commanders who want to win in Vietnam what's wrong with him so the only person who could supply a first-hand recollection of LBJ's role in this was Tom Johnson who spoke with me and spoke with David Sanger who was writing this piece for the Sunday New York Times about this and so it becomes not a story of cables going back and forth in a bureaucracy but the role of what a president did and what LBJ did according to Tom totally in character says I won't quote the profanity that LBJ used in response to this idea of using nuclear weapons in Vietnam but he basically said you know I've been spending four years trying to keep this war from becoming nuclear I wanted to keep Russia and China out if we bring in nuclear weapons that's going to become a war with Russia and China who also have nuclear weapons this could wind up killing 100 million people I feel strongly about what's in stake in Vietnam but not to the point of risking the lives of 100 million people and incinerating the hemisphere and so the result was that we avoided that fate and so two things, number one we oftentimes hear people saying you know why don't we leave war to the generals that's why we don't nothing wrong with Westmoreland I mean his job as commander was to win the Vietnam war if possible within the framework of the assignment and the means that he had been given but the job of the president of the United States, Lyndon Johnson was yes if possible win the war in Vietnam but also make sure that you don't kill 100 million people and that is why it is crucial that we always have in America a president of wisdom and judgment and experience and a sense of history always and as we want to that end in the book's epilogue you write the founders hope that all future presidents would be people of sagacity, self-restraint honesty, experienced character and profound respect for democratic ideals as they look forward in our history on balance would they be pleased with the commanders in chief who would occupy the White House or would they be disappointed? I think for the most part they'd be happy with the presence that we have chosen, most of them but one thing that they really worried about and I think this is something to keep in mind and I'm not in politics I am a registered independent this is not a current events comment this book I started 10 years ago it's the same thing I'd be saying whatever the current situation is but one thing always to be aware of and worry about and really sleep with one eye open is that anyone who worries about presidents meddling with our democratic institutions or violating our civil liberties or abusing power wartime is the time that it really happens Woodrow Wilson my sweetheart Woodrow Wilson passed something called the espionage act and the espionage act was used to go after journalists or anyone else who criticized him still in force presidents can use it today presidents can declare martial law in wartime there's a very big temptation for modern presidents to get involved in wars because it gives them more power than they otherwise might have I mean if God forbid a cyber attack or a Russian missile comes over the North Pole did anyone for instance get on your iPhone a couple weeks ago a little bit more than that a presidential alert announcement it's benign today but someday we may have a president who uses that and modern communications in ways that are not so benign so what it comes to is just to close this basically in Philadelphia in 1787 Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of a system have you given us and he said a republic if you can keep it it's our job always with every president to always keep a vigilant eye on every president to make sure that they do not abuse power in a way that may jeopardize our democracy and that is one of the jobs of all of us as citizens it's important for us to vote I come from Chicago we're urged to vote more than once on election day so we take that early and often we take that very seriously but the other thing I come back to is what Franklin also said about that our critic is our friend all of us must always criticize always protest presidents and everyone in office because that's the only way we keep our democracy it is a testament to it is a testament to Michael's skill as an author that the book is 750 pages and to my mind it's too short the New York Times calls I don't want to doubt the graciousness of Mark up to grow the New York Times calls presidents of war a superb an important book superbly rendered I want to thank our guest Michael Beschloss thanks very much can I say one word one word from our guest sorry and if I could say number one thank you to all of you for coming when we had to reschedule the evening all of us really appreciate the fact that you're kind enough to be here since we were not able to do it last week and the other thing is if I could thank my interlocutor the great Mark up to grow just wonderful thank you so much