>>> PRESIDENT BIDEN IS ASKING CONGRESS TO CUT A $105 BILLION CHECK FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.

THAT INCLUDES SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL AND UKRAINE'S WAR EFFORTS.

BUT WITH THE HOUSE STUCK IN AN ENDLESS VOTING LOOP OVER WHO IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT SPEAKER, IT'S UNCLEAR IF OR WHEN CONGRESS MAY ACT.

WHEN IT COMES TO DYSFUNCTIONAL POLITICS STANDING IN THE WAY OF PROGRESS, STEVE INSKEEP SAYS LESSONS CAN BE LEARNED FROM LOOKING BACK.

HE EXPLAINS HOW IN HIS NEW BOOK "DIFFER WE MUST: HOW LINCOLN SUCCEEDED IN A DIVIDED AMERICA."

AND HE DISCUSSED MORE OF THAT WITH MICHEL MARTIN.

>> THANKS.

STEVE INSKEEP, THANK YOU FOR TALKING WITH US.

>> IT'S GREAT TO TALK WITH YOU.

>> BEFORE WE DIG INTO THE BOOK, I DID WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT KIND OF YOUR DUAL IDENTITY.

YOU ARE A HARD-NOSED JOURNALIST, HAVE BEEN A JOURNALIST FOR YEARS, BUT ALSO BEEN WRITING BOOKS FOR YEARS.

MOST OF WHICH FOCUS ON HISTORY.

WHAT DOES ONE DO FOR YOU OR THE OTHER DOES NOT OR WHY IS IT YOU ARE ABLE TO DO BOTH OR WANT DO BOTH.

>> I WAS GOING TO JOKE ABOUT THE NEED TO MAKE A LIVING.

I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING DEEPER TO IT THAN THAT.

I FEEL WHEN I'M WRITING HISTORY, I AM COVERING THE SAME STORY OFTEN I AM COVERING AS A JOURNALIST AND EACH FEEDS OFF THE OTHER AND IN A SENSE MAKES IT EASIER.

WHERE I AM AT RIGHT NOW IS THAT EVEN MORE THAN USUAL IT FEELS LIKE THE NEWS STORIES PLAY OFF THE HISTORY AND BUILD OFF THE HISTORY.

SO EACH OF THESE TWO SIDES OF MY CAREER CHANGES MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE OTHER.

WRITING HISTORY CHANGES WHICH NEWS STORIES I THINK THERE ARE IMPORTANT AND WHICH ARE NOT A BIG DEAL AT ALL.

>> THE OTHER THING THAT WAS INTERESTING TO ME IS THAT YOUR PREVIOUS BOOKS HAVE BEEN ABOUT PEOPLE THAT -- PEOPLE OR SUBJECTS THAT PEOPLE MAY NOT KNOW VERY WELL.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN IS A DIFFERENT STORY.

HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS IDEA ABOUT WRITING ABOUT HIM THROUGH THE LENS OF HIS ENCOUNTERS WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE?

>> YOU ARE RIGHT.

THIS IS A SUPER FAMOUS TOPIC.

HE IS SOMEONE THAT I ADMIRED AND BEEN INTERESTED SINCE I WAS A KID GROWING UP IN INDIANA, WHERE LINCOLN SPENT METRO OF HIS YOUTH.

LOTS OF PEOPLE KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT LINCOLN.

I FEEL THAT IN THE COURSE OF THIS RESEARCH, I DISCOVERED SOMETHING ABOUT AMERICA OR A LOT OF LITTLE THINGS ABOUT AMERICA AND ABOUT LINCOLN AS A POLITICIAN, AS OPPOSED TO A KIND OF SECULAR SAINT THAT WERE NEW TO ME.

16 MEETINGS OF PEOPLE WHO DIFFERED WITH HIM OR DISAGREED WITH HIM I THINK EXPOSED A LOT OF CLASS, DIFFERENT RACES, DIFFERENT GENDERS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A TIME WHEN WHITE MEN HAD VIRTUALLY ALL THE POWER AND ATTENTION.

I THINK IT EXPOSES AMERICA A LITTLE BIT.

AND I THINK SHOWING HIM IN COMBAT OR IN DEBATE OR IN ALLIANCE WITH VARIOUS KINDS OF PEOPLE ALSO REVEALS LINCOLN IN A NEW AND DIFFERENT WAY.

THE WAY THAT IF YOU WATCH AN ATHLETE ON THE FIELD, YOU CAN TRULY SEE THEIR ART BECAUSE SIGH THEM IN ACTION.

>> THIS IS SHOWING LINCOLN IN ACTION WITH OTHER PEOPLE.

>> THE TITLE OF THE BOOK IS "DIFFER WE MUST."

SO REALLY THE CORE IS PEOPLE WITH WHOM HE HAD DISAGREEMENTS.

SOME WERE ENORMOUS DISAGREEMENTS, ENORMOUS MORAL DISAGREEMENTS.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU TALK ABOUT IS HOW HE KIND OF KEPT THEM IN HIS LIFE OR STAYED CONNECTED TO THEM.

LET'S START WITH FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

LINCOLN RECEIVED FREDERICK DOUGLASS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, CORDIALLY.

A LOT OF PEOPLE COULD MAKE POLITICAL HAY OUT OF THERE.

WHAT ARE YOU DOING ENTERTAINING THIS BLACK MAN AT THE WHITE HOUSE, HOW DARE YOU, THAT KIND OF THING.

TELL ME ABOUT IT.

>> YOU ARE RIGHT, PEOPLE COULD AND DID MAKE POLITICAL HAY OUT OF THAT.

ONE OF THE MANY REASONS THAT DOUGLASS WAS FAMOUS, OF COURSE HE ESCAPED FROM SLAVERY, HE WAS A WRITER, ABOLITIONIST, ANTI-SLAVERY ACTIVIST, BUT HE WAS ALSO SOMEONE WHO COULD BE SMEARED IN CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPERS ALL THE TIME.

THEY SAID THAT REPUBLICAN PARTY WAS FOLLOWING THE AGENDA OF THIS BLACK MAN, FRED TRICK DOUGLAS.

HE CONSIDERED LINCOLN'S REPUBLICAN PARTY TOO MODERATE AND CONSTANTLY CRITICIZED LINCOLN AS PRESIDENT FOR MOVING TOO SLOWLY AGAINST SLAVERY AND AT THE SAME TIME DOUGLASS WAS PRAGMATIC AS LINCOLN WAS AND UNDERSTOOD THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STOOD THE BEST CHANCE OF DEALING A BLOW AGAINST SLAVERY, SO HE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REPUBLICANS AND WORKED WITH WITH LINCOLN EVEN WHILE DISAGREE WITH LINCOLN.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS MEETING WAS ABOUT.

DOUGLASS, AFTER THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION IN 1863 VOLUNTEERED TO HELP RECRUIT BLACK NEN FOR THE UNION ARMY.

BUT THEN FELT THAT LINCOLN'S ADMINISTRATION MADE A LIAR OUT OF HIM BY FAILING TO PROVIDE THE EQUAL TREATMENT THAT HAD BEEN PROMISED, THAT DOUGLASS PROMISED.

SO HE EFFECTIVELY WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO PROTEST TO ABRAHAM LINCOLN WHO SHOWED SOME OF HIS LEADERSHIP STYLE FIRST BY TAKING A MEETING WITH THIS GUY WHO PUBLICLY CRITICIZED HIM FIERCELY, CALLED HIM RACIST AND OTHER THINGS.

SECONDS ADMITTING THAT HE HAD BEEN SLOW TO PROVIDE THE EQUALITY THAT HE KNEW WAS CALLED FOR.

AND THIRD, EXPLAINING WHY POLITICAL REALITY REQUIRED HIM TO DO THINGS IN A CERTAIN TIMING AND AT A CERTAIN TIME AND ALSO COMMITTING TO MAKING THINGS RIGHT.

DOUGLASS, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS UPSET THAT BLACK MEN WERE NOT RECEIVING EQUAL PAY TO WHITE SOLDIERS.

THAT WAS CORRECTED BY THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

SO THEY HAD A KIND OF ALLIANCE IN SPITE OF BROAD DIFFERENCES ABOUT HOW TO ATTACK LEGISSLAVER >> WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO YOU?

>> IT SHOWS ME A POLITICAL LEADER WHO WAS PATIENT, WHO KEPT HIS EYE ON THE LONG TERM, WHO REACHED OUT TO PEOPLE WHO DISAGREED WITH HIM, WHO DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY THAT SOMEONE HAD TO AGREE ENTIRELY WITH HIM, WHO REACHED BEYOND WHAT WE WOULD CALL THE POLITICAL BASE TO MAKE ALLIANCES.

WE JUST TALKED ABOUT FREDERICK DOUGLASS, ABOLITIONIST, ESCAPED FROM SLAVERY.

THE TITLE OF THE BOOK "DIFFER WE MUST" IS FROM A LETTER LINCOLN WROTE TO A MAN OF A SLAVE HOLDING FAMILY, WHO BY HIS ADULT LIFE AGREED IN THE ABSTRACT ACCORDING TO LINCOLN THAT SLAVERY WAS WRONG, BUT LINCOLN FELT HE WASN'T REALLY SERIOUS POLITICALLY ABOUT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

WASN'T SERIOUS ABOUT RECONTRIBUTING IT OR ENDING IT.

BUT THEN HE WROTE IN THE LETTER, IF FOR THIS YOU AND I MUST DIFFER, DIFFER WE MUST, AND HE SIGNED THE LETTER YOUR FRIEND FOREVER, WHICH STRIKES ME AS A HARD THING FOR MANY OF US TO CONCEIVE TODAY.

WE'RE TOLD THAT WE NEED TO ALMOST OSTRACIZE OR ISOLATE OURSELVES FROM PEOPLE WHO HOLD REPUGNANT VIEWS OR TERRIBLE VIEWS.

LINCOLN KEPT IN TOUCH WITH EVERYBODY.

EVEN IF HE DIDN'T ULTIMATELY AGREE WITH THEM.

AND WOULD GET SOME USE OR SOME VALUE OUT OF THEM.

HE ULTIMATELY GOT VALUE OUT OF JOSHUA SPEED WHO STAYED LOYAL TO THE UNION WHEN THE CIVIL WAR BROKE OUT.

>> INTERESTING.

JOSHUA SPEED THOUGH LIFELONG FRIEND.

YOU KNOW, THEY HAD REP THAT WENT BEYOND THIS ISSUE.

TALK ABOUT JOSEPH GILLESPIE.

>> THIS IS AN UNBELIEVABLE STORY.

I FEEL THAT I UNCOVERED A SECRET HISTORY OF LINCOLN'S POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING IN THE 1850s ON HIS WAY TO THE PRESIDENCY.

HE WAS HELPING BUILD IN ANTI-SLAVERY PARTY, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND HE REALIZED THERE WERE ONLY SO MANY ANTI-SLAVERY VOTES AMERICA.

WRITE VOTERS HAD DEEPLY MIXED VIEWS ABOUT SLAVERY.

HE INTO HEADED ALL THE VOTES HE COULD GET.

IN ILLINOIS THAT INCLUDED VOETS WHO HATED IMMIGRANTS.

WHO JOINED ANTI-IMMIGRANT SOCIETIES KNOWN AS NO NOTHING SOCIETIES, AND JOSEPH GILLESPIE WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.

HE HAD A WAS A FRIEND OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

LINCOLN NEEDED VOTES IN THE U.S. SENATE CAMPAIGN IN 1858 AND HE LEANED ON JOSEPH IN AN EFFORT TO GET THEM REPEATEDLY WROTE TO HIM FOR INSTRUCTIONS HOW TO CAMPAIGN, EVEN HIMSELF APPEARED ON STAGE AT LEAST TWICE WITH JOSEPH GILLESPIE TO APPEAL FOR NO NOTHING VOTES.

AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, AS FAR AS THE RECORD GOES, LINCOLN NEVER ENDORSED NO NOTHING VIEWS.

HE NEVER WENT ACROSS HIS PRINCIPLES BY DOING THAT.

HE FOUND THEIR VIEWS REPUGNANT.

>> JUST SAYING -- YOU SAY IN THE BOOK -- YOU POINT OUT IN THE BOOK -- I THINK HE SAID THIS IN A LETTER THAT GILLESPIE WOULD USE THEIR TIME TOGETHER TO PUSH HIM ON THESE ANTI-IMMIGRANT VIEWS AND HE WROTE IN ONE OF HIS PERSONAL LETTERS JUST HOW TIRESOME HE FOUND IT.

IT KIND OF REMINDS US OF, LIKE, UNCLE BUD AT THANKSGIVING BEATING ON SOME ISSUE.

YOU ARE LIKE, COULD YOU STOP?

>> EXACTLY RIGHT.

BUT HE WAS LIKE ENGAGING WITH THIS GUY AND TRYING TO GET PEOPLE WITH REALLY BAD DWRDS TO CAST GOOD VOTES AGAINST SLAVERY, WHICH IS A HARD CONCEPT FOR US TODAY.

>> IS THIS KIND OF A RELATIVELY MODERN IDEA THAT UNLESS YOU'RE WITH ME ON EVERYTHING, YOU ARE WITH ME ON NOTHING?

>> THERE WERE PEOPLE THEN WHO THOUGHT THAT WAY, THAT KIND OF PURIST IDEA OR PURITAN IDEA OF POLITICS.

WITH WWE WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND HOW WRONG SLAVERY WAS.

ABOLITIONISTS FELT THAT POLITICAL SYSTEM WAS SO CORRUPTED BY SLAVERY, THEY WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

THEY WOULDN'T EVEN VOTE.

THE MOST RADICAL ABOLITIONISTS AND SOME PUBLICLY BURNED THE CONSTITUTION.

AND SO THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT THAT LINCOLN WAS WAY TOO FRIENDLY WITH SLAVE OWNERS AND WAY TOO FRIENDLY WITH UNPLEASANT PEOPLE AND WONDERED WHY HE WAS DOING THIS.

>> SO, OBVIOUSLY, I LEARNED A LOT FROM THE BOOK AND THERE WERE FIGURES IN THERE WHO PEOPLE I HAD HEARD OF BUT DIDN'T KNOW THEIR HISTORY, PEOPLE I NEVER HEARD OF.

WAS THERE SOMEBODY YOU WROTE ABOUT THAT YOU JUST WERE REALLY SURPRISED BY?

>> ALMOST THE LAST CHARACTER TO BE ADD TODAY THIS COLLECTION.

MARY ELLEN WISE.

ONE OF THREE WOMEN IN THIS BOOK WHO IS A LITTLE MYSTERIOUS BECAUSE THEY ARE STORY IS HARD TO VERIFY.

HER STORY WAS SHE WAS A TEENAGER FROM INDIANA AT THE START OF THE WAR WHO CUT OFF HER HAIR, PUT ON MEN'S CLOTHES ENLISTED THE ARMY AND SERVED IN THE ARMY AS SOME NUMBER OF WOMEN APPARENTLY DID.

HER SERVICE IS EXTREMELY HARD TO PIN DOWN.

PARTS OF HER STORY MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL.

SHE WAS FOUND IN UNIFORM IN THE SOUTH IN WAR ZONES AND IN 1864 WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO SAY TO LINCOLN THAT SHE WAS OWED BACK PAY AND NEEDED HELP COLLECTING IT.

THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT AMAZE ME ABOUT THIS STORY AND ONE IS THAT LINCOLN COMPLETELY WELCOMED THE IDEA.

HE WANTED ANYBODY TO SERVE WHO COULD SERVE.

HE REALIZED THAT THE UNION NEEDED TO WIN THE WAR OF NUMBERS, AND WHEN A WOMANS SHOWD UP AND SAID I SERVED MY COUNTRY HE DIDN'T SAY GET OUT OF HERE, HE WROTE A NOTE TO A FEDERAL PAY MASTER SAYING PAY THIS WOMAN WHO CLAIMS TO BE OWED MONEY AND IF THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT I WILL COVER THE DIFFERENCE MYSELF.

AND ALSO HE WAS OKAY WITH THE PUBLIC KNOWING -- HE WAS POLITICALLY VERY CLEVER AND HE WAS ESSENTIALLY FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD FIGHT FORT UNION.

HE EVEN ISSUED THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF TAKING BLACK LABORERS AWAY FROM THE SOUTH TO ENSLAVED THEM AND EP LISTS THEM WHEN THEY WERE WILLING TO ADD TO EUN YOUR FORCES.

HE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE ISSUING THE PROCLAMATION.

IT'S WRITTEN IN THE PROCK CALCULATION AS A PURPOSE OF THE PROCLAMATION.

HE WANTED PEOPLE TO FIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY.

HE UNDERSTOOD IN AN ELECTION YOU NEED TO BUILD A MAJORITY BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND THE CIVIL WAR WAS EFFECTIVELY AN ELECTION BY OTHER MEANS AND IT WAS WON BECAUSE THE UNION HAD THE MAJORITY.

>> YOU KNOW, THIS RAISES THE QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN ASKED, YOU KNOW, OF OTHER LEADERS SINCE, WHICH IS WAS HE SINCERELY AGAINST SLAVERY.

ONE OF THE THINGS THE POINTS YOUR BOOK MAKES CLEAR IS THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE FARTHER ALONG IN THEIR THINKING ABOUT THE EQUALITY OF HUMAN BEINGS THAN LINCOLN WAS.

BUT THIS WHOLE QUESTION OF DOES IT MATTER WHAT A PERSON TRULY BELIEVES, LIKE THEY BELIEVE IT IN THEIR CORE.

DID YOU -- HOW DID YOU COME OUT ON THAT?

DO YOU HAVE A OPN OPINION ABOUT THAT.

>> >> THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT.

THAT'S VERY PERCEPTIVE.

WE THINK OF RACE AS A PERSONAL NOW, A MATTER OF THE SOUL.

CAN WE SHOW OTHER PEOPLE WE ARE PURE.

DENOUNCE ANYBODY ELSE WHO IS IMPURE.

I DON'T MEAN TO SAY THAT'S UNIMPORTANT.

BUT WITH LINCOLN THE QUESTION IS WHAT DIFFERENCE DID HE MAKE AS A POLITICAL LEADER AND OF COURSE IT WAS A GIGANTIC DIFFERENCE.

AS TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER -- WHAT HE BELIEVED IN HIS SOUL, IT'S CLEAR TO ME FROM HIS WRITINGS, ALTHOUGH HE IS SOMETHING OF A MYSTERIOUS CHARACTER, HE ALWAYS BELIEVED SLAVERY WAS WRONG.

HE LEAFED THAT WHEN IT WAS TO HIS ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE, HE BELIEVED IT CONSISTENT LIE THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE.

THERE ARE STATEMENTS HE MADE THAT ARE CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN ALLOWING FOR POLITICAL OR SOCIAL EQUALITY OF BLACK PEOPLE AND HE EVEN TALKED ABOUT COLONIZATION, SENDED FREE PEOPLE OVERSEAS SOMEWHERE ELSEWHERE THEY COULD BE FREE, AND YET I'M TEMPTED TO SEE SOME OF THOSE STATEMENTS AS POLITICAL DODGES TO APPEAL TO WHITE VOTERS BECAUSE IN MANY OF THE SAME SPEECHES THERE IS A LOGIC THAT LEADS TO A EQUALITY.

THERE IS A SPEECH IN 1854 WHERE HE SAYS CONFIDENT GOVERNMENT IS ABSO AND ETERNALLY RIGHT AND IT'S A TOTALLY -- AND IT'S A TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF SELF-GOVERNMENT IF A BLACK MAN CANNOT GOVERN HIMSELF.

AND THERE IS THAT KIND OF LOGIC AND THAT TALK OF EQUALITY AGAIN AND AGAIN.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT LINCOLN BELIEVED AS HE SAID SO MANY TIMES, HE PICKED UP FROM ABOLITIONISTST IN THE CREED OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ABOUT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, REFERRED TO THAT AS MY ANCIENT FAITH AND HIS PRACTICAL BELIEF WAS LET'S GET ALL OF THE EQUALITY WE CAN GET AWAY WITH NOW AND LEAVE THE REST FOR ANOTHER TIME WHEN WE CAN TRY FOR SOME MORE.

>> LET'S ZOOM OUT ON THAT QUESTION THOUGH AND TALK ABOUT KIND OF THE PRESENT MOMENT.

YOU KNOW, YOUR BOOK IN A WAY WITHOUT REALLY BEING SUPER EXPLICIT ABOUT IT IS KIND OF A BRIEF IN BEHALF OF POLITICAL SKILL.

IN THE SERVICE OF KIND OF MORAL RIGHT.

AND I THINK WHAT I THINK -- I THINK THE SUBTEXT IS THAT POLITICAL SKILL MATTERS.

SO THE QUESTION I THINK I HAVE FOR YOU IS, IS THERE -- ARE THERE OTHER FIGURES CONTEMPORARY FIGURES THAT REMIND YOU ARE LINCOLN, WHO DO PUT POLITICAL SKILL IN THE SERVICE OF MORAL RIGHT, AND ARE SOMETIMES CRITICIZED FOR IT?

>> WE CAN NAME SEVERAL OF THEM.

I AM NOT SAYING ANY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE LIKE LINCOLN, BUT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO TAKE THAT KIND OF APPROACH AND LEAN ON POLITICAL SKILL AND BUILDING COALITIONS AND DEALING WITH OTHER PEOPLE.

PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS MADE THAT PART OF HIS APPEAL, HE IS GOING TO BE BIPARTISAN, HE IS GOING TO WORK WITH DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLE, IN HIS FIRST PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN HE WAS CRITICIZED FOR SAYING AS A SENATOR IN THE 1970s HE WORKED WITH OLD TIME SEGREGATIONISTS NOT TO DO SEGREGATION BUT TO GET POST POSITIVE THINGS DONE.

WHY WOULD YOU TALK TO THESE PEOPLE.

WHETHER RIGHT OR WRONG, I UNDERSTAND WHY.

THAT OLD SEGREGATION SENATOR HAD POWER AND YOU COULD HAVE HIM VOTING FOR YOU OR AGAINST YOU AND HE WOULD TRY TO BRING THEM ONBOARD.

BIDEN MADE A SHOW OF ATTEMPTING BIPARTISAN WHEN POSSIBLE.

OTHER PEOPLE WE COULD TALK ABOUT.

THE PREVIOUS DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WAS MORE CENTRIST THAN PERHAPS HE SEEMED ALTHOUGH HE WAS PRESENTED AS A KIND OF RADICAL FIGURE.

THERE HAVE BEEN REPUBLICANS THROUGH HISTORY WHO HAVE BUILT ON LINCOLN'S LEGACY.

I THINK ABOUT THE PASSAGE OF THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WHICH HAPPENED BECAUSE EVERETT DIRKSEN, A REPUBLICAN FROM ILLINOIS, GATHERED UP CONSERVATIVE VOTES GET IT THROUGH THE SENATE PARTLY BY RAISING OBJECTIONS AND CONCERNS AND AMENDMENTS TO THIS BILL HE ALWAYS SUPPORTED ALL ALONG BUT HE WAS TRYING TO BRING MORE CONSERVATIVE VOICES ALONG.

WE COULD GO THROUGH AND FIND A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL PLAYING THE GAME MORE OR LESS SUCCESSFULLY, AND WHO UNDERSTAND THAT DEMOCRACY AND REPUBLIC WITH SEPARATION OF POWERS MEANS YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH THE PERSON ON THE OTHER SIDE EVEN WHEN THEY ARE TOTALLY WRONG.

>> YOU KNOW, HISTORIANS ARE SOMETIMES ACCUSED OF BEING K NOSTALGIC.

DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

>> I HOPE NOT.

I AM INTERESTED IN THE PAST, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE I WISH I LIVED IN THE PAST.

AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND HOW BAD IT WAS, HOW TERRIBLE IT WAS.

IN FACT, THAT IS PART OF THIS STORY THAT I HAVE TO TELL OR I FEEL I HAVE TO TELL.

LINCOLN DID NOT PLAY HIS ROLE IN ENDING SLAVERY JUST BECAUSE HE THOUGHT SLAVERY WAS WRONG.

IT WAS ORDINARY TO ADMIT THAT SLAVERY WAS WRONG.

THERE WERE LITERAL SLAVE OWNERS WHO SAID THIS IS A TERRIBLE PRACTICE, IT'S TOO BAD I HAVE TO KEEP DOING IT.

THE THING INNOVATIVE ABOUT LINCOLN IS GETTING A OWN WHELMINGLY WHITE NATIONAL ELECTORATE THAT HAD DEEPLY MIXED FEELINGS AND FEARS ABOUT SLAVE SLAIFRY AND BLACK PEOPLE, GETTING THAT HIGHLY IMPERFECT ELECTORATE TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING BETTER AFTER TIME.

THAT TOOK COALITION BUILDING AND POLITICAL SKILL.

THAT'S WHAT MADE HIM DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT.

NOT SOLELY HIS MORAL BELIEF, WHICH WAS CORRECT, BUT PRACTICAL SKILL.

>> STEVE INSKEEP, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

IT'S A JOY TO TALK YOU TO.