Today. Great to see so many people out here, hungry for books. Toiling away in front of my moreter, dealing with electronics than live people. Of course im writing about history. The people im writing about our dead. Its nice to see live people. Engrossed in the kinds of things i and other writers here write about. I was fortunate to have grown up in a home that was filled with books. I grew up in yonkers, new york. A suburb of new york city, thousands of books, walls filled with books. As a little kid the sense of myks around me is one of most indelible memories of childhood. Remembering that is a tiny kid starting to climb i thought of the bookshelves which were floortoceiling as mountains i could climb up. My mother would find me five shelves up crying to get down again. Both my parents were fortunately great readers. My father was a self educated working guy. He installed boilers and heating systems. My mother on the other hand, had a degree in classics. She was a poet. A human rights activist. She worked with American Indians back in the 1950s. Frequent adversary of the federal government at that time. She put me to bed at night reading things like the odyssey and the elliott, german mythology. Wonderful series of history books. Those that were my age remember the landmark books. Random house, absolutely terrific books and i would love to see a comparable series done again today. I must have read 100 of them. First they were read to me and i read them myself. There was really no turning back after that. I burrowed into whatever they published a book on i read. I got a little older, i 1950s bruce the kaplans wonderful books on the civil war. Im thinking particularly of a great trilogy on the army of the potomac. The workload to me in a dramatic literary fashion. At the same time, my grandmother, who was born in 1882, and had grown up among men war,ad fought in the civil father who fought in the 88th new york, the irish brigade and so on. Im here today because he ducked at the right moment at fredericksburg. When i was little kid my grandmother entertain me with his war stories. It was a while before i realized the civil war occurred in the 1860s and had not just happened. Say with thisg to is how close history was in the environment i grew up in. Wen we went on vacations stop for every roadside marker on a historical subject. Gettysburg at the age of nine and riveted by the experience. To little bighorn in montana and places like that. I grew up with the sense that the present is meaningless unless you understand the path. T came out of when i came also to understand my mother did human rights work with American History, im talking primarily about the civil war, cant be divorced from the politics that produced it. I like walking across the gettysburg battlefield or manhattan today. You are seeing history, the war in a vacuum without understanding the politics behind it and that is primarily the politics of slavery going back to the beginning of the republic. And the book i am primarily here to talk to you about today, americas great debate, which is a book about the compromise of 1850 and the great tenmonth long debate that led up to it is in a way the culmination of a group of three books which dan mentioned, one of them bound for canaan, the underground railroad. The first history of the underground railroad since the 1890s. After that, a book titled not very imaginatively, washington. The making of the american capital. But it is primarily about how the politics of slavery shaped what became this city, that is to say in the the politics that produced it, and the First Congress, the politics that sustained the commitment to a potomac capitol rather than a free state capital in the 1790s and the experience of the slaves who built washington. And in different ways these books look at the ways in which slavery distorted and corrupted american politics, and more than politics in america. And in americas great debate, particularly the years the decades before the civil war. Now, what were the origins of this particular book . Now, i kept checking the weather today because, as you probably know, storms, thunderstorms were predicted for approximately this time originally. And i was prepared for this, for thunder out there at this moment, which it isnt cooperating. Because i was going to evoke the thunderous voice of daniel webster, which i wont intend to try to imitate. I am not as sonorous as he. When i was writing my underground Railroad Book some years back, i came across a speech he delivered to a group of businessmen in syracuse, new york, syracuse in early new york state was a hot bed of underground railroad abolitionist activity. This was in the wake of the great compromise in which webster was a pivotal figure. And he ranted in a voice that resonated like thunder that he would personally see to it that fugitive slave law passed as part of the compromise would be executed in every city of the north and that anyone who dared opposed it were traitors, traitors, traitors, and i what i was startled by his ferocity. Because webster, known as the godlike daniel in his day, the great voice for decades, or believed to be the great voice of the antislavery north, i thought, he had been misquoted or taken out of context, and surprisingly still happens in politics. But it was not a misquote, and webster made a lot of speeches in that winter, and he did everything he could to see that the law was enforced. And wondering what happened to webster led me to the great debate of 1850. Which produced this stupendously ambitious compromise that the crafters believed would bring sectional peace in their time. Millard fillmore, president at the time when the compromise was completed, sounds a little bit in his optimism like Neville Chamberlain coming back from munich in 1938. I will say, parenthetically, that Millard Fillmore, probably the least warmly remembered well, one of president s in our history, actually plays a very interesting, politically deft and sophisticated role in the compromise. Dont write off millard. You may not like him, but dont write him off. There is more to him than you think. So anyway, this is the story of the compromise. I should say, to distill it, its a great story. It is an incredibly dramatic story filled, as dan said, with largerthanlife, fascinating personalities. Fillmore may not be one of the more fascinating ones, but extraordinary individuals. The longest debate in american political history. Worldclass gridlock and are there residences with todays gridlock . Yes, there are, though this book was not written as an argument about todays politics, but if you read it, you will draw some conclusions about the problems of compromise and what the kind of courage it takes to break gridlock and to compromise. Its a story the history, not just to divert it this way, but history is full of cliffhangers. Would the country go to war . Nobody knew. Could congress, anyone in congress, break the gridlock . Nobody knew. The speechmaking was spectacular. Guns were drawn on the floor of the senate, as far as we know. I mean, maybe some guys are packing today and would like to do it as well. Cant speak to that. But im not going to read much at all, but i do want to read you a fragment of one of henry clays magnificent speeches on the floor of the senate, introducing what would become the framework for the compromise, and clay was at this moment great, great senator from kentucky, one of the longest serving politicians in 19th century American History. He has been inspired as a boy by hearing Patrick Henry in virginia, so he is a link with the founders and so on. At any rate, clay, who in effect drives this debate in the senate, drives it very mercilessly. Often he is called a slave driver or an overseer in the senate, but there are very few moments in American History when it was felt that the countrys fate hinged on one mans ability to change beliefs and to change minds almost on the spot. And the nation clay declared had become like some kind of monstrous industrial hell full of uproar, confusion, and menace. The states like 20 odd furnaces in full blast, generating heat and passion and imtemperance, the disintegration of the union was an immediate possibility, he warned. He begged his fellow senators in the north and south to pause at the edge of the precipice before the fearful and disastrous leap is taken into the yawning abyss below. These guys didnt let 21yearold staffers write their speeches. They read. They read. They wrote their own speeches. The country, as i said a moment ago, was much closer to war in 1850 than we generally realize. But the proximity of war is often overwhelmed and understandably by what happened a decade later, by the civil war when it finally occurs. But the closer i looked at the political struggle of 1850, the more astonished i was that at the country didnt disintegrate. Congress was paralyzed across congress was paralyzed, across the south talk of secession was ripe. Texas was raising troops to protect federal forces in new mexico. Journalists predicted that blood would soon be spilled in the halls of congress, and guns were drawn in fact. And yet in the end, a solution, a compromise was found. The questions i began with were, how . How did Congress Make a paralyzed system actually work . And what would a close examination of the debate reveal about the costs of unyielding partisanship, and about the nature of compromise, and about the human qualities that it took to bridge a divide that Many Americans feared could never be crossed . And i should say, i also fell in love with the oratory of the 1850s. The politicians of the time spoke persuasively and provocatively and passionately in language that was so splendid that it reached the level of literature. Incidentally, all the speeches are available, downloadable for free, the library of congress. They make great reading, most of them. And thanks to the library of congress, theyre making them available. The boldest and spin doctors argued and grammatically challenged messages that that today passes for political communication truly is pathetic and pretty incoherent in comparison to the way political men spoke in 1850. Then congressmen and senators who as offer as not lacked college education, spoke from the barest of notes or no notes at all for hours on end. Three, four hours at a clip, and were confident that their colleagues and the public would understand them. In speeches that were peppered with illusions to shakespeare, the bible, American History, british common law, classical literature, and then also said what they meant. Men who believed in slavery said so, as for those who hated it. No matter how much odium it attracted. And the nakedness of how people spoke politically at the time is very powerful in comparison to trying to parse what many people in our Politics Today seem to be avoiding. And i mean, that applies, frankly, across the board. Not to everyone. Not to everyone. Im not a cynic about politics. And indeed, reading the history of politics in this country, and the difficulty of making anything happen politically, it wasnt easier in 1850 than it is today. And it takes a lot of courage for people to enter this gigantic, citywide, nationwide cement mixer that is politics in america today, and i have colassal respect for people who embark on that. And nothing in this leads me to disparage todays politicians, except i wish they wrote better english. So, anyway, quickly the background here, members of congress, all americans, were tormented by seemingly unanswerable questions. How were the New Territories gained in the mexican war to be governed . Could the country expand and survive, or would it crack into a slew of unfriendly statelettes that would fall prey to amibitions of foreign powers . This were all questions in 1850. How would the demands for the westward expansion of slavery to be placated . Slavery advocates of were demanding the right to go to the pacific. Calling for a state of south california. Would the south secede if its demands werent met . If it did, would the federal government fight back . Nobody knew. Could northerners be made to stem the flood of fugitive slaves . Those werent academic questions that were tearing the country apart. In congress, and the senate, 15 free states matched evenly against 15 slave states, giving the south virtual veto power over any legislation that even remotely seemed to threaten slavery. California, californians, 200,000 people fled to california during the gold rush. Very quickly they demand admission to the union as a free state. Which will tip the balance in the senate. Abolitionists are battling slaverys advocates over the expansion of slavery elsewhere and texas, which is the likely ignition point, is claiming the entire vast new mexico territory, which is far vaster than the presentday state of new mexico, and threatening to carry slavery across it at gunpoint if necessary, raising troops to do so. And the civil war had begun in 1850, it wouldnt have been in charleston harbor. It would have been in santa fe. Think about it. So but, i mean this is not entirely a cliffhanger in that we do know, there was a compromise. In short, what did it boil down to . The following. California would be admitted with no restriction, that is as congress would form western boundary where it is today east of new mexico. If texas relinquished its claim, the u. S. Would pay off its states debt. Texas was begging for a bailout. Think of general motors. They took the money. Another part of the compromise, the slave trade in washington, dc would be ended, but slavery itself would be affirmed, and a new fugitive slave law would sharply increase punishment for anyone who aided runaway slaves. The net effect of the compromise, in short, would be that it staved off war for 10 years. This was not a small accomplishment, given what was perceived as the impossibility of achieving it at the time. It was a decade that ultimately transformed the north so that when war finally came, it was a war that the north could actually was willing to fight and could actually win, which which was not true in 1850. Parenthetically, i think i should say that a question i am typically asked is whether i think war was inevitable a civil war was inevitable. Absolutely inevitable. Its perfectly clear, reading, listening to, closely reading the debates of 1850, that representatives of the deep south, most of them those who were most influential, john c. Calhoun, who died dramatically in the middle of the debate, not on the floor of the senate but across the street from it, Jefferson Davis, his heir, and others had mentally already seceded in 1850, and Jefferson Davis i quote him in one of his many ringing interventions in this debate on behalf of secession made it clear that he was willing to be drafted any time as the leader for a new confederation of slaves that states that would protect slavery in 1850. And there was, there was one possible peaceful way of terminating slavery and preventing civil war. It was available at any time from the founding of the country in from the First Congress in 1789 on, up to the civil war. It would have been expensive, but only a fraction of the cost in money of the civil war, and at comparatively little, if any, cost in blood, and that was compensated emancipation. It was advanced it was practiced well, it was advanced by some abolitionists and some other politics. It was an absolute nonstarter in the slave states. Why . Because slaves were reproducing property. There was no interest in it whatsoever. The south preferred to fight a war than to emancipate slaves at a price. Second, northerners frankly, imbued with the racism of the time, did not want the north flooded with free africans either. This is an added dimension to what happened in 1861. So, the great story here i told you ive given you the punchline, told you what the compromise consisted of basically, but the great story is how this happened. And its a legislative tour de force, full of extraordinary personalities. I mentioned henry clay already. Daniel webster. I gave you a little bit of daniel webster. Stephen a. Douglas, who was called by journalists of the time a steam engine in britches. Because of his ferocious dynamism. Had these men, clay, webster, conservative whigs aligned with stephen a. Douglas, a northern democrat, essentially, on behalf of compromise, on one side, against an Extraordinary Group of men who really defined the old term about bedfellows. President zachary taylor, old rough and ready, again a president who is largely forgotten by most americans that plays but plays a fascinating role in thats events. Much more interesting role morally, very courageous individual, a lifelong slave owner, had a plantation in louisiana but is absolutely dead set against, against the expansion of slavery westward. Very, very staunch in opposing clays compromise because he figured that it might permit the slavery to go westward. On the other hand, politically unfortunately clueless, john c. Calhoun, whom i mentioned, brilliantly termed by a Great American historian as the marks as the marx of the master class because he saw society in terms of labor and capital or labor and slave owners. Jefferson davis, i have already said a few words about him. Jefferson davis and men of his type softly three his type saw slavery as art of american life. They loved it. No matter what you may have heard somewhere, they thought slavery was great. These speeches are thick with ringing celebrations about how wonderful slavery is, not only for messieurs but for slaves, 4 masters but for slaves, values and of the intentions of the founders and of modern science and modern anthropology and so on. And you have also a guy, there is just no time to delve into some of these personalities. Thomas parks benson, who was a loud, bullying, atrocious, frightening guy, senator from missouri, and others adamant against the expansion of slavery, the nuances and complexities of some of the men are quite fascinating. They dont you dont find everybody where you expect to on the playing board, and Thomas Hart Benson i am not going to go searching for the exact quote, but had the skin of an alligator and it was said he was fond of taking a morning scrub in the basement of the capitol, and it was said he used a curry come used for a horse. He would scrape the upper body in the morning and lower part in the afternoon, and if there was somebody there to talk to, he said things, like, for example, sir, sir, if this brush merely touched you, you would cry with pain. And he was a kind of blunt and a great figure in this debate. He had a gun pulled on him by henry foote, another one i would love to talk to you about if i can. Henry foote, a blood rival from mississippi that has although a ferocious defender of slavery, he has aligned himself with henry clay because his unionism trumped his Southern National ambition. And henry foote is a waspish fellow, very short, balding, like apoplectic davidson terrace david sedaris. He at one point is so terrified by benton, bentons motions, he pulls out a gun and threatens to shoot him. Anyway, these things are happening. And i mean, this book is about the process of how clay primarily finally seconded by douglas, took over when clays omnibus bill crashed and failed often known the wreck of the omnibus. The omnibus was the streetcar, the bus, the public bus of its day, and it failed as an omnibus. Douglas went on to engineer the passage of the component of clays compromise in separate pieces with separate coalitions within the senate, and helped to stagemanage the passing of the same pieces in the house of representatives, where he had members of the house acting essentially on his behalf. And how this was done is a terrific story of inside politics, and of daytoday drama, often as they said, daytoday, week to week, nobody knew how it would come out. My desire was to take you into the world of these men, and take you on to the floor of the senate and the floor of the house, and inside the debates as they were happening so that you dont know anymore about whats happening then the people who were participating in them, or than the public knew at the time. And this was particularly a challenge with particularly a challenge with proslavery members, the defenders of slavery, who, as you might imagine, since much of my writing is about abolitionism and slavery and so on, was morally a challenge to get into their heads and to a degree into their hearts and understand why they believed in what they believed in to a degree that could actually sway americans who were not southerners or slave owners. Now, ive i absolutely want to take some questions. I have gotten a sign of 10 minutes. Im going to speed, speed through a couple of final remarks here, and throw away all kinds of wonderful antedotes i was going to tell you. But simply to say that in the end, this is a story, finally, about compromise. Compromise doesnt seem like something thats dramatic, but on the other hand, it took 10 months to wring this compromise out. And it shows creative politics, this story. The example of creative american politics at its best, politics in the hands of masters, and it shows how compromise has nothing to do with a Friendly Group hug whatsoever. And you know, one hears all the time, people say why cant they just all get together . Maybe you can do that over a beer, but thats not political compromise. Its brutal. Its costly. It leaves everyone wounded, clay, calhoun, webster all died within two years after this. Webster, in particular, who i began with, i think ill end with, was pivotal in bringing conservative, northern whigs around in support of clays compromise and was destroyed politically by it, and this was not entirely selfless. He his political calculus didnt work, but there was a kind of political courage in it even though his embrace of the fugitive slave law which none of us today can really honor, but it nonetheless at the moment took terrific political courage. The point is that if real politics if real compromise is going to be wrought, even the best must, perhaps contemplate falling on their sword, and that these men, webster, others, were doing something much bigger than themselves to allow the union to survive, and they show us that the highest calling is not just to survive politically. Theres much more i could say, but i wanted to take questions so lets do that now. Thank you. [applause] thank you very much for your talk. I had a question about some of the dissenters to the compromise. People that either thought that it was odious to discuss compromise beyond slavery or people who just thought the compromise would not work. Fergus ok. I will try to answer that briefly. The individual who, with whom i who caused me to wrestle with was william seward, a senator from new york state, and seward, you know him primarily as lincolns rival in 1860, you know he was then regarded as a republican conservative. In 1850, he is regarded as the most radical man in the senate, and had a heroic record as an antislavery radical in new york state. And seward, particularly famous for articulating in the senate, the idea of a higher law, theres a higher moral law than the mere laws of men, and that required him to oppose compromise because the compromise included an acceptance of slavery, something he could not vote for. And you know, my heart is with seward. Seward is the most modern man. Seward could walk out of that debate and sit down with us today. He would know what were talking about in america today, and hed like it, you know . But yet, he was very much on the fringe of his moment, and while, if i were there in 1850, think, go, bill, you know . I also believe that the compromise is imperative at the time because the north was not ready to fight a civil war. It was not militarized. It was not radicalized in the way that the deep south already had become, so i think theres a paradox here, and it confronts one historian with the danger of not imposing the present on the past. Hi. Hi, im a graduate of university of buffalo where we remember Millard Fillmore with the name of the college for students. We remember him as the guy on the wrong side of every issue he ever took a side on. Could you talk a little bit about Millard Fillmore . How did we get from this great compromise to bleeding kansas and john brown . Fergus again, ill try to be very brief. That is we could be here for years answering that. I mean, a word about fillmore. Within the context, if you believe that the compromise was necessary, as i do, and that its longterm effects in helping ironically, partly by the passage of the fugitive slave law, which helped radicalized northern whites, who couldnt care less about slaves and slavery in the south, but hated the idea of their own rights being taken away by being requested to collaborate with slave hunters in the north. If you believe that the compromise was ultimately balanced and a good and necessary thing, fillmores support of it therefore was wise. Ok . Fillmores record after that is doubtful. In 1864 he supported mcclellan. One could go on. What happened, what happened between 1850 and 1861, quick tour, bleeding kansas, kansasnebraska bill, steven a. Douglas, the political hero of the compromise of the bill, and its brilliant. If you want to know why steven a. Douglas was known for his stature, ability and political brilliance, read about him in 1850. Thats when he became the great steven a. Douglas. Now, he was forever in slow and then rapid ever afterwards because he in effect by promoting the kansasnebraska act a couple of years later, and essentially obviated what had been achieved in the compromise of 1850. That, too, helped radicalize northerners. The blood in kansas that came out of the kansasnebraska act helped radicalize northerners. John brown, Harpers Ferry raid and other abolitionist activity helped radicalize northerners, and so it would certainly be wrong to suggest the compromise all by itself somehow was all that mattered in that decade. These other things were partly offshoots of it, but again, war would have come in 1850 without it. Hi. I was wondering if its tough to deal with hypotheticals, but i was wondering if you could comment on how the compromise would have been different or would have happened if james polk had run for president , run for a second term and won . Fergus wow. I have to say, i feel it is too hypothetical for me to take on. I mean, sometimes these questions are fun. That is a im not sure i im not sure i have a really interesting answer for that. I mean, i could answer it, but i like for it to be interesting. I think would he have won . I mean, thats one question. I mean, by no means certain that he would have won. There was huge opposition to the war, justly so. It was a terrible war, although, here we are today with the nation we are, because james polk wageed a terrible war and acquired everything from texas to california, and you know, we can let that keep us awake at night too. And the disgust with the war and therefore the disgust with democratic policy was pretty intense by 1850. Zachary taylor was a great candidate if he was an ineffectual president. He was well, like other president s, even at present day, he said as little as possible about himself. He was everything to everyone. He i dont think he released his taxes. [laughter] fergus and im skeptical of polk. It wouldnt have been a walkin for polk, and had he been had he won, it would have been a very troubled presidency. On the other hand, he was a strong proslavery man, and it would have been harder to achieve a compromise. All right. We have time for one more question. Thank you for your speech here today. I would like to talk about a statement made by frederick douglass, who was one of the former slaves who found freedom in the underground railroad and actually was able to get a lot of assistance from the abolitionists up there, up north. Frederick douglass said that he found that some of the slave masters who were or claimed to be the most christian were some of the most severe with their treatment and punishment towards the slaves. So my question is with some of the individuals that you researched, how did they reconcile god and slavery in the building of the christian nation . Fergus this is a great question. Theres so much to say on this subject. I will try to say it very a little and very concisely. As i suggested earlier, you can go into these debates and read what they said. I quoted that defense at length because its important to understand what slave owners and what defenders of slavery had in their heads. So we understand that they thought they were moral people mostly, and there was an entire industry of parsing the bible for language that either defended or failed to criticize slavery, a great deal. I mean, for example, jesus never explicitly condemned it, so it must be in accordance with the teachings of jesus. You know, there was an abolitionist reading of the bible as well too. These were counter readings, but theres much, much on this. And i, by the way, i recommend to everyone a book thats coming out soon. Henry wincheck, who wrote a book about washington and its slaves, is bringing out a book next month about jefferson and his slaves, and it addresses not jeffersons religiosity, because he didnt have any, but jefferson, the way jefferson who considered himself a enlightened man, really dealt with his slaves. Theres a lot of new things in that book coming up. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] American History tv products are available at the online store. Go to cspan. Org to see whats new with American History tv and check out all the cspan products. Panel of photo historians looks at the u. S. Army signal corps with a focus on images captured by world war ii soldiers photographers. The National Archives and the u. S. Army center of military history cohosted the event. Corps army signal photographic collection is one of the largest in the National Archives still picture branch. Roughly one million images world war i through 1981 chronicle luke perry activities during law during war and