than i deserve to be helped. it is a great kindness that i have done. so when you read about my acknowledgment you will find out that there are a truckload of people like susan and joe who have helped me and i've really appreciated it. i want to give you a picture of what these people look like and how kind people can be to research historians. again, susan, joe, thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you very much for that welcome. in particular to the nixon library and the richard nixon foundation. and also to c-span viewers who are joining us virtually. starting a little bit more personally,

welcome back to the west coast. i think for many years this was a second home or a home for you, how many years did you spend here and did you miss it? >> i spent with susan, seven years going through documents day by day, week by week, year by year. this volume as a mere two and a half million pages of research which is what i do. since you asked that question, i have a little plug and i forgot to give. a year from now, luke nichter will be sitting in the say. he has been finishing a study of the election of 1968 and the incident had virtually nothing to do with the election of 1968. if you are here now, come back for a loop a year from now and find out what

really did happen in 1968. >> we can just be an opposite sides, at that point. but, juxtapose that experience of studying residential records for seven years with what it came from. i once heard you talk about or describe yourself as a small pant from baltimore. so, how does someone in that situation go on to get a ph. d. in american history and eventually come to write not a book, but a series on the subject? >> i was very lucky i did not spend my life in jail. i have a 19 inch knife scar on my shoulder where a guy was nice enough to hit me and walking home from school it was always a kindness if i had less than four people p beat me up. how

in the world i got out of it, i am guessing it was sheer luck. how i ended up getting a doctorate, i still have to pinch myself. i guarantee you, if any of you think i am that good, truly i am not that good. >> so, we are here to talk about a book and some no but some may not know it is part of a larger series. and so, when you are doing show and tell with nixon books it is never easy to carry them around. but, i will briefly introduce these books and have you say a line or two about each one. just properly tease them for the audience. the first book in the series, richard nixon the contender that congress hears in 1946 and 1952. >> the basis of the book is

that nobody ever, really, seriously did the research that susan helped me with. the remarkable thing i found about it was the charges of nixon beating jerry for his first congressional election in 1946, that nixon smeared voorhees as a communist. that never happened. it was all made up. and the real story was here, at the nixon library. it was in the jerry for his papers. and the second thing that i found remarkable was that nixon smeared alina hagan douglas in the 1950s senatorial contest. the problem was the only time he ever referred to her was in the private conversation

between him and his public relations person. but, as far as the reason why she lost can be found in oklahoma, in her archives, at the university of oklahoma. so, the whole nature of how nixon was darth vader in these two elections are fundamentally flawed. >> moving forward in time, and nixon's career. the second, the, biggest thickest of the series. the president and the apprentice, eisenhower and nixon in 1952 to 1961. >> that one is basically nixon's vice presidency, and how he ran for the vice presidency. again, once more, the story is so flawed. one of the stories came from an oral history interview where dwight eisenhower was watching nixon

gave what was known as the checkers speech. and he slammed his hand into what he was writing and tore the paper. the only problem was i found a copy of the speech, there was no tear. there was nothing. it was just an obvious of paper. and then, even better than that was that nixon and eisenhower did not get along. that really, eisenhower did not like nixon. i am saying to myself, self, how in the world can dwight eisenhower be president for eight years and have next and as his vice president for eight years, and they did not get along? quite frankly, they get along fine. once i wrote i know this is going to shot you, but people stopped talking about that. isn't it amazing that you can lie so much until you get

caught? and then you just stop. you do not apologize for basically intellectual cowardice. >> and so, then, with the latest installment in this area which we will dive into, campaign of the century, kennedy, nixon, and the election of 1960. how many heroes would you say you have been formally or informally working on this collection of works? >> 25 years. >> and how many pieces of paper, pages of records do you think you have examined, or investigated. >> i read about 800 pages a day, that is what i do. and i can do that with comprehension. the fact is i do not think it was a book. i was a fan of theodore right in 1960. i thought he told everything. and then i started to do the research.

again, to surprise you i was wrong. there has been, up until i wrote this nobody who had ever read or searched on the great debates of 1960. of kennedy's catholicism of 1960, they fraud in 1960. all of that stuff had never been done. it had been mentioned, maybe, but none of it had ever been done in a serious, archival way. so, i look at all of this material and i discovered that rather the theodore wright, who by the way i am writing or i wrote the making the president of 1960 perfectly, purposely in his memoirs. making kennedy the hero, and nixon a villain. that is not the way you write history. and so, this is basically not only a corrective

of theodore right. but, basically to say that the entire story of the 1960 election had been seriously flawed. >> so, having that as background, let's take a look at what the critics say interviews of these books. all three of these books have been reviewed in the new york times, as well as many other places. that is alone signaling that books are worth paying attention to. but, the critics on the reviews have no shortage of things to talk about. i went through in preparation, i read all three reviews in the times of these three books. i would like to go through just the top 20 outtakes from these reviews and get your thoughts. these are comments, quotes about either the author, the work in question being reviewed, or about the work characterization

of richard nixon. it refers to the works as a forgiving judgment of richard nixon. he equipped nixon of all charges, he takes one side, more polemical than persuasive. he distorts the views of those he would rebut, the rancor filled prejudice says against his own clear eyed distillation's, they are naive. you are not persuasive. they are a feast of the leaves one hungry, simplistic, land. i am not done. a sympathetic glow, in a way substantiated. nixon friendly, spin, adds nothing here but fresh outrage. a hit job, lacking, nothing no, and circumstantial. so, my old boss

at c-span was bryan lam. just to say irwin gellman, what are you doing wrong? >> i keep on telling you, i am a lot less than you think i am. even with these people, i am even lesser than you think i am. [laughs] they wonder of you i got in the new york times for this book said, nothing new, everything i've written is bad, and that, quite frankly, if you read the book you are an idiot. that appeared one line in the new york times, and my sales went up four times. and then made the sunday edition of the new york times and my sales went up three times. and then, the week after it appeared in the new york times sunday edition to show you how crazy the new york times is, i became an editor of choice. so, the editors of the new york times

repudiated their owner of your. it just goes to show you, if any of you out here are familiar with fair haven i am probably the reject from fair haven. >> i am not sure where to go with a question after that but what i would ask is, why is writing about richard nixon's still so controversial? >> there are several reasons, the main reason is one of the reviews that i received, which was a nice review. it was not bad. it said i cannot see it, nixon was so bad and kennedy was so good. there is no way that this book that was written as well as it was written, and the arguments that are made are so reasonable. it just cannot

be. and, one of the reviews i got from a syndicate in canada was, this is an important book and you ought to read it, but 60 years they have gotten it wrong, gellman it is swimming up street. the general tenor of nixon being a despicable individual. one of the greatest things that i remember as i was writing the second volume was that just about every liberal commentator called the speech maudlin. and maudlin is not a good term. i found in the stephenson papers of princeton about 120 letters that were

favorable to stephenson, and unfavorable to the checker speech. the only thing i left out was they were about 3 million pieces of paper that went into the republican national committee. saying how wonderful the speech was. and yet, to this day, many people believe that they checker speech was maudlin, when in fact it was a great speech that was considered by an overwhelming number of people. just imagine, 3 million people wrote him to say how good the speech was. and yet, we remember 120 or 130 letters by people who probably did not even listen to this speech, on how awful it was. something seems to be a little out of balance there one 100 plus people can say it was awful, and 3 million people can say it was great. i think that we have

become, generally speaking, so conditioned two things that have never been challenged. people do not challenge what they do not think about in many cases. and, what i did was not so much to record what i personally thought, but what the records show, and the records showed something blatantly different than what has been published. i think that for watts of a better, rationalization or reason, that the fact that people have accepted this nonsense so easily is because they just want to. >> i think that theme of the many myths and misunderstandings in the nixon era is a theme that resonates throughout the book, here. i have highlighted, i call the

myths or misunderstandings. there are about seven of them's that come to me writing the book. i have some photos that will help to illustrate that we will clip through. but, for each one i think what i would like to do is stay the conventional wisdom or the mid and misunderstanding as it has existed in the literature over the decades. i will allow you to respond to each one. i think number one, a role of eisenhower. nixon lost in 1960 because eisenhower did not do enough. that nixon was on this ill-fated ticket that did not have eisenhower's support. he might not have been eisenhower's choice to run. there is a lot of mythology about exactly what eisenhower's role was during this year. it is something that you address in the book. >> once more, you write what you think people want to raid weather than writing what really happened. just imagine, for a second, that eisenhower absolutely hated nixon. can any

of you seriously, here, believe that eisenhower would want a senator with no legislative experience, with no legislative record, to be his incumbent vice president i would carry on his role? the whole idea that eisenhower and nixon did not get along, or did not have a good relationship, is flawed by the very nature of all the things eisenhower had people doing. going on ship trips, legislation, being invited to all of the various meetings that eisenhower and nixon shared together. it makes no logical sense when you talk to people and say, how come all of this happened and eisenhower and nixon cannot get along? for eight years they made faces

that one another? that is absurd! >> i could not choose just one eisenhower photo, i like this one because it is emphatic. could you say, the 1960 election has been called one of the first modern campaigns, can you talk about a 1960 of the role that nixon played and the role of women in the campaign? >> i am sure that all of you already know all of the numbers of voting, but, remember how charismatic kennedy was. remember how women's mood. the election of 1960, for the first time in american history, more women voted than man. it will never guess what the breakdown was between this wonderful, charismatic kennedy and women

voting. it was 50 1:49. i made one small air, 51 for nixon, 49 for kennedy. pat nixon took the position that this is what her husband was. she was very ambitious, like her husband, very smart. very attuned to what he was doing. and, the ultimate performer. and she and mamie eisenhower, and dwight eisenhower had a very good relationship. and, if you look at the letters between dwight eisenhower and richard nixon, again, big surprise, just about every one of them said say hello to pat, i really appreciate her help. does not sound like eisenhower and his wife did not get along with dick and pat.

>> a second misunderstanding or myth of the campaign is that nixon and lodge were ill suited together on a ticket, and that lodge was the downfall for richard nixon that year. what do you say? >> on january 7th 1960 draw it as an hour wrote a secret memo to his own file. his presidential pick was richard nixon. his vice presidential pick was henry cabinet lodged junior. it was not so much eisenhower picking lodge. and, at the time lodge was the representative for the united states. and was the main person who talked about the russians being evil, and made a tremendous amount of television

time. he had the ability, he was a boston robin. by the way, you might not know the person who wrote the biography on henry cabinet launch jr.. it is luke nichter. >> it was not a self serving question, i promise. third misunderstanding i highlighted about the 1960s on the democratic side. also interesting that on the 1960s senator john f. kennedy, that candidate would not have been elected president without johnson, it was really eisenhower the trip to the south. louisiana and 56. virginia both campaigns, began to eat away at the democratic south. would kennedy have won

the presidency without lyndon johnson from to texas to hold down the democratic south? >> as we would say in the most area tight turns, not a snowball's chance.. what lyndon johnson brought to the table was what a famous texan journalist said. every election that johnson and the rest of the people that ran for elections in texas during the timeframe up to 1960, what's competitive corruption. it was just competing on who could steal more votes. johnson ran in 1941 and lost because he did not steal enough votes. but, in 1948 he won by 87 votes. and he received a wonderful nickname landslide lyndon. now, imagine for a second, imagine, in an election that johnson ran in he

did not win without corruption. and yet, every author, every major biography of lyndon johnson talks about the fraud in 1941, and in 1948 multiple chapters. one book, a major biography on the election of 1960 says that by the way there is nothing about ford in 1960 so i am not going to talk about it. since there was no fraud why talk about it? in another book it did not even make a half a sentence. it made a footnote on the next to last page and the volume. it basically said that there was no fraud in 1960, because the office said there was no fraud. a fairly impartial guy that worked for jon kennedy and was a member of the democratic

party. and, in addition to that there was no fraud in texas and the reason there was no fraud in texas is because leon bureau skis said you could not prove it. obviously the answer to the question is there is no fraud, because people who had a great stake in saying there was no fraud said there was no fraud. the only problem for that is, they lied. >> we will return to the topic of fraud in a few more questions. next misunderstanding of the campaign is nixon arriving in hawaii. you can see the aloha sign on his arrival and giving a speech. another myth and misunderstanding. it was a mistake for nixon to pledge to campaign all 50 states. >> again, all of the people who write about the election. especially people who write about how wonderful kennedy was and how great his campaign was. how in the world could nixon be

so stupid as to run in all 50 states? not a mention that the candidate campaigned in 45 states. i guess he was five states less stupid than nixon was. [laughs] the nature of the way that both of them ran, and if you want to look at this in the most objective way, is that nixon had just as many votes as kennedy had. i am guessing since they both had of just about the same amount of votes, that kennedy must have run a much better campaign than nixon did. the only problem, again, with that is how in the world, if both of these guys have the

same amount of votes that one run a farce barrier campaign than the other? they logical inconsistency is undeniable. and yet, folks do not want to talk about it. >> our next mid, or misunderstanding, is the arrest of martin luther king in that fall, of 1960, was decisive in the election outcome. while answering that charge, can you set up a little bit of the relationship between nixon and kang and what the background was in that campaign? >> martin luther king junior, by 1960, was a major player. not the major player, he was a major player and black society. and, the nature of the campaign with the black people was the story. better yet, the fable is that king was arrested for violating a minor parole violation. he was sent to a

hard georgia prison, and one of kennedy's staff said, called kennedy and said you should call and offer your sympathy. and he did, and that is just about all he did was offer sympathy. because john f. kennedy was the last democratic candidate that actively solicited voters in the south. can you believe that john f. kennedy solicited white votes in the south? absolutely, that is what he did. but, according to the story, after the call to greta black people went crazy. they changed their vote enormously. according to the black newspapers, 5 million

black people went to the polls. 50% of all black voters went to the polls to vote overwhelmingly for john kennedy. and the democrats sent out things across the united states. isn't this a great story? across the united states, handing out ballots to black people to vote for jack kennedy. there's only one small problem, it never happened. there were no massive amounts of this. there were not 5 million black voters, the best number i have is somewhere between two and a half million to 3 million blocks, that is 25 to 30% of all eligible black voters. by the way, from 1936 when black people change dramatically for the electing

democrats, they elect two thirds go to democrats. one third goes to republicans through the 1960 election. let me thank kennedy received 68% of ballots, of the black vote. nixon received 32% of the black vote, now i am not really good with numbers like john evans. but, 32% sounds like a third. 68% sounds like two thirds. so, nothing changed as far as the numbers went. the story has become so exaggerated and so out of line. it is still, so many people, and unbelievable change in the election. frankly,

it never happened. >> we have two more to go, they next mid or misunderstanding, whether the issue of the solace-ism and the extent to which candidate used religion as a political issue whether that was a decisive in the outcome. >> no one has ever done research on the influence of chrysalises i'm in the election. there are two books on it, they were so actively researching that none of them did archival research. it is so much par for the course me, you feel like writing with no material to support it. kennedy won with 50% 3% of his vote from catholics. over half of his votes, over 17 million votes came from catholics.

according to the republican national committee, somewhere between four to 6 million more catholics voted in 1960 than ever before. the nature of that meant that kennedy could not have won the election without the catholic vote. in addition to that in 1952 and 1956 eyes now got 62% of the protestant vote. in 1963, pardon me, in 1960, to show you how much of this has changed it went from 62% all the way up. a great jump to 63%. it did not change materially at all. and yet, the story is told is fundamentally wrong. because the candid the machine was talking, they were really going to smear nixon in

a landslide. and when the landslide did not happen, the most convenient reason was too many, too many bigots. the only thing they do not mention is, in 1956, pardon me, eisenhower got almost 50% of the catholic vote. the only number that significantly changed in 1960 was that canada received 78%. that is an increase of 29%. and yet no one ever mentions it. >> one of the ancillary charges of billy graham was present kenny in the oval office after

he left. ancillary to that is that nixon used religion in a dirty way during the campaign to exploit this idea that america was not ready to elect its first catholic. of course, you talk about al smith previously the. did you find evidence of other side using religion in this harsh political round? >> there was some fundamental bigotry where certain evangelicals and others did not want a catholic in the white house because they did not want the pope running the federal

government. but by and large what happened in 1928 had significantly changed. the amount of adversarial relations between catholic voting and non catholic voting had mellowed a great deal. the idea of the charge that nixon was dirty because he was encouraging bigotry same old nixon staff. you do not have to prove it all you have to do is say. >> we have already talked a little bit about fraud, let's close on that topic. nowadays we see every political election in these red and blue maps, the outcome from 1960. and the version of it that i like because you get more original terms is the one by county. of course, red being republican, blue being democratic. i guess when you see a map like this, comment a little bit on a couple of things. what do you see when you see a map like this? an outcome like this. for its own sake but also compared

to what eisenhower was doing in the south. ultimately, the big