all right. well, thank you. thank you both for being here. let's give them a round of applause.

i'd like now to introduce my friend and coeditor frank scutaro franks, an attorney and the author of president grant reconsidered and the supreme court's retreat from reconstruction. he's the president of the grant monument association, which is dedicated to the preservation of grant's tomb, which you can see behind me here. he served previously as the counsel for the constitu ation for the senate judiciary committee and as a special counsel to the house, select investigative panel. he now serves as vice president and senior counsel of j.c. and franks, thank so much for being with us tonight. thank you, chris.

it's so good to be with you. thank you. white house historical association for hosting us tonight and for all of you who are joining us. before we start, why don't i give chris an introduction, although already gotten a partial introduction. he is really one of the most talented and vivid describe of the civil war currently lecturing. he is a ph.d. and editor shape and co-founder of the emerging civil war. he's the managing editor of the emerging civil war series published service bd. he's a writing professor in the jindal school of communication at saint bonaventure university, where he also serves as the associate dean for undergraduate program. and as he had mentioned, he's the historian, residence historian in residence stevenson ridge on the spotsylvania battlefield. so, so great to be with you again.

and it's so nice to see so many people who are sounding off in the chat function and seeing people from all over the country. it's really neat to have great conversation from. across the continent and around the world. here on zoom. so thanks for that technology. bryan, a short powerpoint that he's going to bring up here, so i'll ask him to activate his screen share. and as he does, that will give us the chance to crow a little bit about the colleagues that we got to work with as we pulled together. grant at 200. this was really a book that kind of draws from some of the scholars both presidential and military scholars who have worked on grant's biographies at grant's sites around the country and really got to kind of bring them together to help folks. grant. his 200th birthday was last year. he is often painted with brushes that stereotype him or paint him in poor light for various reasons. and we're going to talk a bit about that tonight. but you can see from our list of

contributors, we've got just some top notch grant historians and we've got folks who work at grant related his sites. we encourage you to visit places like grant's tomb grant cottage where he spent the last six weeks before he died his house out in saint louis, ulysses grant national historic site, the power of places, especially evocative. to help you understand the story of grant in particular and, frank, who spent a lot of time talking and studying grant's presidency, in particular. and so, frank, i want to kind of shift things over to you, because i know that you believe that grant belongs among the pantheon of the greatest of our great presidents. and that's not necessarily view that people have historically held. why is it that grant has not necessarily been held up in such esteem or. well, chris, as you said, during the late 19th century, a grant

was widely held and the public mind, the highest echelon of great americans alongside, george washington and abraham. but during 20th century grant's reputation was battered by historic, especially presidential reputation. and now in polls of historians rate presidents pioneered 1948 by arthur schlesinger grant was ranked only to rock bottom. warren harding with those two presidents, the only ones rated as failures. now that remained the case in a 1982 poll by robert murray and tim blessing, which had placed grant again second to harding at the bottom. but he skipped forward to the 21st century in grants reputation we see has taken an unmistakable upswing in c-span most recent poll in 2021, he went up to 20, just above the

middle. now think historians polls to be taken with a grain of salt. but i also believe the president can be described as great. one of my essays and granted hundred explorers the changing presidential standing of our 18th president in the eyes of history and why i believe he belongs in the pantheon of great presidents. and much of my own focus goes to the political and the legal to the constitutional really that took place during the reconstruction era. so while the constitution does not assign presidents a direct role in the ratification of constitutional amendments presidents can still exercise the power they do have to secure them. the most foundational constitution all developments in which presidents played significant role were those of the founding and of the civil war reconstruction era.

three presidents in particular such a role. washington, lincoln and grant as the first president. washington provided a forum to the office that the constitution created. the civil war reconstruction era saw the ratification of three new sweeps amendments to the constitution tution, the first and last of which came about with significant presidential intervention. now the 13th amendment, which lincoln helped move through congress before it's by the state, was consummated in december of 1865, prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude. the 14th amendment, among many things guaranteed the equal protection of the laws that was ratified in 1868 without any help from lincoln's successor, andrew johnson. now, the 15th amendment, which prohibited racial discrimination in voting, which wraps up this trio of amendments that, was proposed by congress days

before. grant's inauguration in 1869, but ratified creation by the states would take nearly another year and a lot of presidential involvement. grant urged ratification action in his first inaugural address, he signed requiring ratification by states that were still under military rule. he made appeals to states and he armed twisted when necessary. now, after ratification, he secure the rest of the legal architecture behind the federal guarantee of equal rights, the statute establishing the department of justice five enforcement acts that protected and 15th amendment rights, and the first desegregation law. national scope. the civil rights act of 1875, which also racial discrimination. jury selection. his infant justice department prosecuted. the klan and crushed the organization. 1872 from both political

adversaries and the press grant's interventions in the south throughout his presidency, much of it occurring through the deployment of federal troops, evoked recurring condemnations that accused him of monarchical, militaristic repression. yet grant defended the of reconstruction, perhaps most intensely when it most unpopular in successor rutherford hayes withdrew the last remaining troops from their posts early in his presidency in a move that would be remembered as a repudiation, grant's policy and as the end of reconstruction. opening the door to jim crow. but the process not unfold quite that quickly. during the 1890, a generation really after the age of grant, the southern states felt emboldened to disenfranchize black voters outright. such measures as literacy tests, poll taxes and grandfather clauses. it was then that jim crow had

arrived. now, when the multiracial republic that operated in the south was brought down, it was brought down with a vengeance. the 20th century's long dominant dunning school of history worked from racially premises to excoriate those who were responsible for reconstruction. professor william dunning ended his 1907 narrative on reconstruct asian by writing grant in 1868 had cried peace. but in his time with the radicals and carpetbaggers in the saddle, there was no peace with peace came. one of dunning students, edwin, derided rand for being too rigid and insisting that the 14th and 15th amendments be informed. regrettably, the dominant history for many decades actually criticized our leaders for enforcing the law, at least reconstruction laws. now, as many of history are aware, the civil rights movement

discredited, the racial, a stunning school. but it took more than a generation for the full consequences of this sea and historical thought. it was really starting in the 1990 and in studies over the last quarter that grant's reconstruction record became a point that historians began to recognize as a major rather than something to condemn. there is a growing awareness today of grant's battle against the ku klux klan, in particular, but i think this is only component of a broader array of achievements that included both executive and an entire legislative framework for equal rights that. in this category, i argue is unsurpassed by that of president. now, the reassessment of grants presidency hardly ends with reconstruction. it was rich in other achievements in both domestic and foreign policy. he successfully took on the most fiscal problems the government had ever faced. he refined and successfully

reduced an unfair, precedented national debt, exceeding $2 billion for cutting taxes by $300 billion. he secured the return to the gold standard, which upon taking effect in 1879, was accompanied by an abrupt end to a major depression. consider also president grant's often forgotten foreign policy achievements. on three occasions, our 18th president averted threats of war with spain and great britain, while maintaining the nation's honor. his successful settlement of the alabama claims with great britain, which arose from claims of damages during the civil war from confederate commerce raiders built in british shipyards established principle of international arbitration. the resolution of disputes between nations questions of paramount. grant's diplomatic triumph led to several efforts that promoted alternative to war, including

the hague conventions of 1899 and 1907. and years later, the league of nations and the united nations. yet another episode in which the grant administration war once again with spain was the virginia hart affair. in 1873, the virginia, a steamer, commanded by captain joseph fry, a us citizen, and flying the american flag, was captured by the spanish tornado, claiming that the vessel was aiding cuban rebels. spanish military authorities executed 53 prisoners, including fry and many other americans. grant and his secretary of state hamilton fish resisted pressure to declare war on spain and secured a peaceful resolution of the crisis, including the release of surviving captives and ultimately. $80,000 indemnity from the spanish government. an investigation into the matter had revealed that the virginia

was illegally registered and had no right to fly the american flag. war with spain would come 25 years later, but the grant administration, free of international oil war, contributed more than other to the 33 year period between the civil and the spanish-american war, the longest in american history in which the united states went without the application of a major war. if grant were a late 20th century president, we could imagine the storyline would be primarily about war and peace well as equal rights. there would be iconic photos of him in the oval office pondering the grave decisions he had to make as president. but instead, we get an entire narrative that aims to define the grant administration as corrupt by way of his appointees usually forgotten today how the grand corruption narratives out not about his subordinates, but about equating other phenomena

from the spoils system to grant's reconstruction policy as corrupt threats to the nation. grant's enemies. a prolific group of editors, writers who were in many ways the intellectual ancestors of later historians. corruption was a frequency of inclusion in search of supporting evidence and in fact subject to changing assumptions so much of what they called corruption was merely the practice of the spoils system. the use of partizan criteria in the distribution of appointments which had been in place for generations and used extensively by grant's immediate predecessors, notably including andrew jackson and abraham lincoln himself. perhaps most ominously, a major part of the definition of corruption held by grant's contemporaries critics was his reconstruction policy, which they deemed a threat to what they viewed as the republican ideal. so without actual misconduct in

his administration now executive branch misconduct is, i think, one of the most poorly developed fields of presidential history. one that is plagued by glaring inconsistency is, for one thing, historians have not found the misdeeds of subordinate. it's whether real or hyped to be a fundamental component in the assessment of any president. unless that president was named grant or harding. not coincidentally, two presidents, historians long considered politically unsympathetic. that is to say nothing of that occurred with the participation of the presidents themselves. with the exception of nixon, historians rarely a judicious comparison of. young presidents across the board. and just consider the exception. a survey presidential misconduct originally by stephen woodward during the nixon impeachment inquiry in 1974 with a dozen

historians contributing individual chapters each president. one of these historians, james banner, edited an updated version of that study in 2019. he said to write the history of presidencies through misconduct is completely to misconstrue the nature of presidencies. so let's take harry truman's presidency as an. truman's presidency, one of the most corrupt in the 20th century. banner continued that the real story of that presidency consisted of policy issues such as the berlin airlift and the marshall plan and quote if you try to write history of the truman administration on the grounds of the misconduct of, the white house, then you're not really writing the history of the truman administration. at one point, a strong ideological skew among historian as against ronald reagan almost did him in. amid the disclosure of the iran-contra affair in 1988 american heritage ran an article

by irwin friedman that put reagan in the same category as grant harding and nixon, complete with a cartoon one showing the four presidents falling into a hellish fiery pit around the same time, in his private correspondence, see woodward, despite doing his part during the 1950s to perpetuate the corruption narrative. describe the traditional narrative about the gilded age, including grant's presidency, as a howling anachronism compared to later misconduct. now, the notion that reagan belonged in a presidential pantheon of corruption never stuck, but historians have not quite gotten the memo regarding the misunderstanding of grant on that subject. now, there were, to be sure who proved unworthy during grant's administration, but among his principal subordinates, the individual cases don't really stand out next to other esteemed presidencies.

i go through this case by case in my essay, i'll say to sum up when the context is. grant historians have employed a of double standards treat the president's own abundant integrity as a non-issue. highlight any gilded age corruption that can build a lurid narrative. disregard removed from presidential decision or from the executive branch altogether. actual misconduct is ignore whether the conduct predated the administration or whether the administration itself rooted it out. guilt association is fair game treat innuendo like a established fact downgrade errors in judgment to outright malfeasance when grants subordinates went after corruption or other reformative measures with his knowledge and support detached credit from the president when a subordinate misstep. assign the president blame even. though the conduct occurred out of presidential sight and was divorced from presidential

directives ensured lay or hostile inference upon. hostile inference to reach the hostile conclusion. so for all the correction has occurred for grant presidential rectification, much the incongruous standard that long applied to grant persists today no longer can they to some degree even grant administration presented that omits reconsider production or employs the dunning era condemnation. but the same summary could be expected to omit with impunity. the alabama claims the virginia affair and gold resumption. while it could not omit some form of the corruption narrative without seeming incomplete, it might be that historians care about reconstruction, but less so about other issues that have been distorted. they might not realize how much distortions on other issues are the spillover effect of the polemic accounts from the years

when. the dunning interpretation prevailed. a presidential historians who have not focused on grant should have tried more than they have to apply the same judicious approach to all presidencies. so there are the basic points that i make in my essay. i don't want to omit course the many other essays we have from so many contributors covering grant's military, his political career, as well as so many aspects of his personal life life. and let me chime in real quickly. see a lot of folks sounding off in the chat saying where they're from. we appreciate that. i've seen a couple of people post some questions there. please put your questions in the q&a that'll allow us to sort through comments and be able to get to those questions. a little earlier. i'll follow up on what frank said just a little bit, because i think there are three real reasons why grant's presidential reputation suffers as it does.

and i think one of them is that one of his i think, attributes is that he's personally loyal and is one of his great strengths. it also kind of one of his fatal flaws, and he's painted with this idea of corruption because. the people he was loyal to weren't loyal back to him. and even one instance where he's gotten a subordinate, the name of orville babcock, who grant, actually testifies that babcock is innocent. he is trustworthy. and then later comes out that babcock actually was absolute guilty and grant had put his own personal integrity to back up his friend. and we can look at examples, not just his presidency, but through his military, where he's loyal, perhaps a fault. and i think that people know that about him and can kind of carry that through in his reputation and i think a second reason is that the the rise of what we call the lost cause myth in the postwar years,

particularly beginning in the 1880s as the southern confederacy, you know, loses the war, the survivors of that effort have to explain their loss as part of that effort. they hold up certain icon like robert e lee as as a great general. but how could the great general of the confederacy be, beaten by someone like ulysses s grant? and so they have to kind of tear down grant as they lift lee up in order to to explain away the fact that lee could possibly be beaten by guy by the mid 1880s. reconciliation in north and south is actually going really well. there a lot of good feelings between north and south. the shared experience of these men on the battlefield does a lot to bring them together. it also them to brush a lot of things under the rug such as the centrality of slavery to the civil war. but after grant died, is this lost cause mythology? he's able to kind of take on this greater and greater

responsibility or a greater, greater influence. and it's sort of a eclipses. some of those positives that grant would have been able to defend. that's one of the reasons he takes the presidency, is that he can defend what they won on the battlefield. so the rise of the lost cause does a lot to diminish. grant's both as a general and a president. and finally, he never gets a chance to write his presidential memoir. he does write memoirs. he finishes them three days before he dies. it covers his military career. but as a historian myself, i know frank feels this way too. gosh, if grant had been able to actually write about his presidency and go behind the scenes and tell his side of the story, that would be a fascinating document that would help us better understanding, contextualize his presidency from his point of view. with that, let's open some things up for questions and we've got a lot of them, the q and a and thank you for those of you who have gone back to the q&a to add questions with grace

coming from mississippi. could you discuss connection with grant and samuel clemens? that'd be mark twain. for those of us who remember our english lit. also, thanks for placing the grant presidential library mississippi, which says frank do you want to touch on that briefly? yes. so mark twain arrives pretty late in grant's life as a major player during the dramatic story that concludes really the last year of his life grant in the 1880s finds himself in ruin. he had invested money and basically all the family's money went into a wall street banking firm known as grant ward. mr. the partner in this firm was employing what we would today call ponzi schemes, backing multiple loans with the same collateral and engaging in fraud. and well, when this blew up, the family went under and grant to

undertake the writing of his memoirs. well, he did not previously entertain idea of writing a full length book, but now really had to provide for his family. he had other another option on the table which mark twain, who had his own publishing house. well, this is not nearly as good a deal as i can get you. so he approached grant and he suggests that why don't you let my publishing house do this? and so he did right by grant and he entered entered into a what turned? out to be a really lucrative contract. grant finished his memoir was the manuscript was done approximately four days give or take before his death on july 23rd of 1885. they were posthumously published and royalties from his memoirs, some $450,000. by the time his widow julia, died in 1902, had not only paid

off the family's debts, but restored him to restored the family to wealth. twain and grant, although there was a limited number of interactions they had, i know twain was really fascinated by grant and how such an unassuming character could be at the top of the most famous american of his time. i think he never quite got past that. and if you read mark twain's autobiography, you have to read i can't do justice to it here. mark twain's toast to the babies with grant in the room where grant just falls over laughing. it was really a wonderful little story. who? the babies. they remembered else. and they have to toast to the babies. more questions here. coming up. steven gilroy asks, what role, if any, did grant play in president johnson's impeachment grant?

during the 1860s, during johnson's presidency, he remained the general in chief of the army, and he was involved a lot more, we would expect, say, a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff would be, which would be the modern counterpart to be involved in policy discussions. well, grant's during these years. grew more and more distant from andrew johnson immediately after the civil war. former confederate states were passing what were known as the black codes. these horribly discriminatory laws that sought to return formally enslaved people to a condition that very closely resembled slavery and johnson or the congress tried to respond to this by passing legislation to establish the basic civil rights of all citizens, regardless of race, and also to establish that citizenship begins birth. if you're born in this country, that's what the 14th amendment does in part.

well, johnson opposes all reconstruction measures. he opposes the civil rights act, a bunch of freedman's bureau acts as reconstruction that are passed during 1860s, which congress winds up passing over his veto. he opposes the 14th amendment, even though the president doesn't have a direct say in that. well, when it came time for impeachment, you know, grant was someone who had been consulting with congressional leaders, and he became closer and closer to republicans in congress who, came to have a supermajority that's why they were able to override johnson's vetoes. grant came to believe even in 1865, most of country wasn't the area to believe that. outright enfranchisement of former slaves or a was was do. grant came to believe that that was necessary along with all of these other civil rights measures were being pursued and he also did not like the position that johnson put him in. so he was consulted on most of

these major of reconstruction legislation. and when it came to the implementation of military reconstruction, the confederate states, ten of the 11 former confederate states were actually put under military under a statute implemented in 1868, passed in 18 excuse me, in 1867. grant, as general in chief, has major responsibilities over the implements of military reconstruction and the immediate trigger, the biggest trigger, although there were other accounts of impeachment when the house impeached andrew johnson was johnson's violation of the tenure of office act, an act of dubious constitutionality, although that was something that was more hotly debated at the time than i think it would be in more recent times, which johnson may or may not have violated, depending on how you interpret the statute by firing the secretary of war edwin stanton

and he made grant secretary of war interim like an interim appointment, although grant did ever take that position on a permanent basis where the senate confirmed him. grant did not want to remain in that position to get that to be sort of enabler of president johnson's policies and ultimately he bowed out. and there another secretary of war that was that was appointed. but grant at the time did support impeachment. he did have a direct saying it since he was not a member of either the house or the senate. of course, was never a legislator, but he supported it later on. he had some regrets about that because he thought that the impeachment served as a power play the presidency that it that it weakened the presidency to to some degree and grant i think did much to try to bring the presidency to where it had been. that's a whole other subject of,

how grant did that in many ways. but that was the the relationship that the two of them had. and when grant was sworn in as president, andrew johnson did not attend his inauguration. that's how much bad blood there was. and i think that's a great illustration of, i think, a larger trait of grant i really admire. he evolved and you can see his evolution over time as a military figure and as a politician. he doesn't start the civil war as an but over the course of the war as he sees slavery firsthand, he understands the the social the moral the political aspects of it. he becomes convinced that abolition abolition is a necessity. you and he supports the emancipation proclamation by the end of the war. he thought that that was absolutely something they had to do. and as points out, you know, was not at first a believer of giving newly freed people the vote and. he changes his mind, his

evolution as a politician. and this gets to a question that susan kaiser is asking from cleveland. his evolution as a politician, same sort of thing. he doesn't start out as a politician. and this growing animosity with johnson sort of nudges him toward becoming political he sees the victories that they've won on the battlefield starting to you know the fruits of those and so he wants to become in large part to secure of the fruits of those victories. so that they can continue to win the peace after having won the war. and are we going to have a long discussion about whether was successful or not? and i would argue turned out not to be. but, you know, grant is always open to new input he's to change he's open to evolve and i think that's one of those great aspects of his character that tends to get overlooked victory. yeah those who say in 1868 he told his friend general sherman, talking about his reluctance to

run for president. but this goes to why he ran that's preserved the gains of the war. he said that, you know, $50 million could not compensate him for being president, but that events might force him to do so, in spite of inclination. and he said that there were in his words, they were --, union men who needed protection. he wanted to be the one to protect them. certainly the incumbent president was not doing so. and mere trading polity. that's another thought he expressed in 1868. he did not want job being left to mere trading politicians who might away these very costly gains that had been made. these that had been secured by union victory. and it is a remarkable thing, although it's all that unusual because remember that, the presidency was conceived during the constitutional with a professional soldier in mind. the framers of the constitution

expected that george washington, he were willing would hopefully be the first president. and we have had several professional soldiers in the white house. it is remarkable the record that professional soldiers have when they become president and securing the peace is impressive. they they know war as no occupants of the white house, no war. and grant was no exception to when you look at these foreign policy achievements. but yet also does very much grow as a politician. he learns give speeches. he doesn't give long florid speeches certainly that were typical of the 19th century. he never becomes a daniel webster type. you know, caliber orator, to be sure. but he learns that he becomes he's a legislative president who to capitol hill to try to persuade members of congress in many cases with with great and

also many ways at a level that was just controversial in the 19th century. he was employing certain presidential tactics that we all often associate with the modern presidency. but they were employed many ways. this was just him using his own common sense. if you look at his statesman ship during the last several months, the election of 1876, and in this tremendous crisis between republican rutherford hayes and democrat samuel tilden, who is the rightfully elected president, well, there is a that almost it's the closest the country came to erupting into full blown large scale violence than, of course, the election of 1860, which immediately triggers the civil war. well, grant statesmanship and maintaining a new, even handed, cautious posture during that period.

in addition, making sure behind the scenes that washington was ready they were not going to accept any nonsense by. anyone who would do violence to prevent a peaceful presidential transition and a presidential transition did in fact take place. but it was only days. hayes's occupation was only days after a special presidential inaugural electoral commission that grant had pushed for, had finished its work. frank, a lot of questions from folks about grant and drinking grant and alcoholism. would you care to comment on that? sure. i think it's substantially a myth that grant was a drunkard or that he was even someone you could diagnosed any reliability as an alcohol. the is fragmentary from early in his life but during his peacetime army days when he's on the pacific coast 1852 to 1854, he was peacetime army, a very

hard drinking outfit. and we have some impressionistic a accounts that suggest that probably during that period he drank too much. well one of the things about his meteoric during the civil war a lot of people really look at closely is when you start out and, it's one of the truly dramatic stories, american history, maybe the most meteoric rise to the white house that ever seen. when the war breaks out in 1861, grant as shop clerk at his father's leather hardware goods store in galena. lincoln calls for troops for volunteers after fort sumter is fired upon. grant his services. he quickly rises in the western theater of the war, largely because of the strategic inertia in the western theater that there was no one who really knew how to wage a war and grant knew how to take advantage of

opportunities, tactical and strategic, that were there. and as there was this meteoric rise, those who were in command, i think wanted dredge up whatever dirt they could find on him. and that is where i think the reputation of grant drinking too much came from and it started to baby and on a large scale after shiloh where historians pretty much agree there's no evidence that grant drank too much while the heavy casualties have been because of that. i think the reason being very though not not doing justice to the issue. i know but very concisely one of the things that one observation that precludes the conclusion. i think that was an alcoholic was the last 20 years of his life including the period when he was most intensely in the public eye between 1865 and his death in 1885. during that entire period there are two occasions where either

accounts out there suggesting that grant drank too much. one in 1866. gideon wells, secretary of the navy who hates grant's, suggests that grant was a drinking too much during andrew johnson around the circle, although johnson himself denied that grant was drinking too. and then there was another allegation in 1868 and otherwise. you see, grant's not completely abstaining from the bottle, but you see him in moderation. alcohol flowed in large quantities, and the grant white house and sometimes he would drink. sometimes he would, but was seen to be able to drink with meal that had no you know there was no sense no evidence that he abused it that he had trouble with it. so i think these observations those are it's hard to prove a negative. i think that that the drinking

reputation stems from the smear campaign and is not really supported you know by evidence. so we're just about out of time. going to slide in two quick answers to questions here under the deadline here. dave from d.c. says, consider grant's memoirs to be one of the best autobiography fees by a u.s. president. do you agree? absolutely. grant's memoirs are clear, concise, excellent examples as of writing. they are clear writing, insightful writing. we can't them as objective truth, but we take them as subjective truths because they are his experience. they're accessible. and i would encourage everyone to pick them up for themselves. it really is an excellent example memoir and if i also pick chris's book, chris wrote about this subject last chapter of grant's life. so i'll put it at that plug for chris's, which was very well done. i appreciate that. and then finally, i think an excellent question here from charlene phillips. what's the best for a casual history leaver to get a balance perspective on historic figures

and events? i'm a real big believer. the power of place. go to the places where history happened. walk in the footsteps where history took place. experience those places for yourselves and allow that connection as a doorway into the story in. ways that are relevant to you. read primary sources. read secondary sources from a bunch of different people so you can get a bunch of different opinions and come to your own conclusions. you can listen to talking heads like me and frank all you want. we've got plenty of opinions, but it's best to come up with for yourself through your own experience, enjoying history in ways are important to you, frank and any final word you'd add to that? yeah. it goes to the old adage that the best to understand a person and any people who have any different backgrounds, different circumstance is they might be coming from different places. and this is especially the case when you're looking at people in very different times. the best way to understand a person is to stand in their

shoes. now, short of being literally able to do that exercises what chris mentioned is precisely how to do that try to keep a sense of historical understand time moves forward, understand where the world was, where the country was, when the subject of your attention started out, where was when they finished off and and i think you'll come away with a lot more understanding not only of that historical figure about the broader historical story, including our nations story and and about the and about human nature generally. and every historian and biographer also writing from a particular moment, a particular context, which is the lens through which they're interpreting those. so that's why getting a bunch of different perspectives is important. sorry, we can't get to all of the questions that are the q&a, some wonderful, wonderful