Lecture. Im chief historian at the u. S. Capitol historical society. Welcome. Im really pleased today to introduce you if you dont already know jeanne and david heidler. Theyve been speakers here before for their book on George Washingtons circle and today were really honored that were one day in to the official existence of their latest book on Andrew Jackson, the rise of drew jackson was released yesterday. So were at the threshold of greatness here with the book. I hope you all consider buying. Theyll be available afterwards to sign it for anyone interested and i want to point out their previous book was washington circle. Were selling discounted copies back there. Im told that the hard cover that were selling is five cents more than amazons soft cover so that sounds like a winwin. I hope youll have some Great Questions for jeanne and david. This is a hot topic. I assume some of you are familiar faces but some of you might have been drawn specifically because of Andrew Jackson who has been in the news lately. So lets hear about why, how hes a template for maybe modern politics and you will be taking q a afterwards so think of Great Questions. Ive got a couple. With that, ill ask you to help me welcome jeanne and david. Thank you. [applause] david got it working. Good. Hello, everyone. Chu for that gracious introduction and the boost on the book that just came out yesterday. Can everyone hear me all right . Good. Ill try to keep up the volume here and so that we dont have any problems with that. It is delightful to be back here again. Several years have passed and we see some familiar faces and have met some new friends. Today we would like to talk to you about the central aspect that drove the campaign for 1828 in the wake of the one for 1824, which was the charge of the corrupt bargain. And to ask the question, how corrupt was it. And thats where we get into this business of smear or truth. Part of this is the natural aftermath of an election which is always a time of mixed emotions and contrasting moods. You have the elation of the victors and the disappointment of the defeated and these balance each other after a fashion which leads to a better perspective on the event and the future and gives proportion, a sense of proportion. The first shock of defeat will subside and elation over victory becomes relief over having attained it. From this, theres an equilibrium if everything works right, which is necessary for sound governance. In the best case, the victor is never completely vindicated and the defeated is never completely demolished. A healthy political system preserves the adversarial role as a way to check curve and discourage over we weaning with our and at the same time the extremes of failure and success must be avoided because if they persist, there lies the path to irreconcilable differences and the heedless exercise of power and the reckless form of resistance. Fundamental to avoiding all of this is a general belief that good faith is operating as a given in the election and its aftermath. Imagine, then, the chaos that is likely to ensue if the defeated emerging from the election convinced that they have been cheated, that the process itself was manipulated in bad faith and that the result is illegitimate, that the beneficiaries of it are shallow huksters at best, and evil at worst. Subverting the peoples will, destroying the democratic idea for the venal gain of power. That would be bad enough. But imagine if the losers did not really believe this but were willing to act as if they did, that they were intent upon convincing as many people as possible that the things they know to be lies are the truth. The damage of such an effort, even if unsuccessful, could be incalculable. If its successful its certainly to be devastating and it is that situation that can be broadly categorized as a smear. A smear is a deliberate fabrication at worst or at least a willful twisting of the truth to sully the reputation of the target. Strictly speaking, the truth cannot be a smear. The purpose of it in politics is as a scheme to achieve advantage over an opponent outside of traditional means such as debate over issues of policies or contrasting differences which are presented either in person or through pertinent issues being explored in writing. Candidates and entities resort to the smear because they wish to distract from something. They wish to change the subject. It could be from their own personal failings or foibles or their own records, either in personal matters where they behaved questionably or past political stances that were or have become unpopular. In short, distraction is the operative function of a smear. For a candidate with nearly unassailable credibility, it is an easy way to damage an opponent and this is where it becomes especially dangerous. Credibility comes from popularity. A sterling deed, an inspiring life story or even a sense of identification with people that creates a bond for even essentially ephemeral reasons it is nonetheless in parts authority. The fallacy of arguing from authority is only matched by the ease of doing so. It is to say that you should believe me because of who i am, discounting the need for evidence or even dismissing contradictory evidence as irrelevant. Jeanne hello. At the heart of our story today is the constitutional role of the house of representatives in deciding a president ial election such as the one in 1824 an election where no candidate received a majority in the Electoral College. This had only happened once before, the election of 18 helped, when Thomas Jefferson tied with his Vice President ial running mate, aaron burr. It is somewhat odd that it hadnt happened more than one time before because the framers of the constitution actually envisioned it happening pretty frequently. They thought that because they believed that favorite sons from the various states would run in each of the quadrennial elections and as a result there would be no majority in the Electoral College. That would throw it into the house of representatives. They chose the house because it is considered the peoples house. The frequency of the elections of course, make it more responsive to the will of the people. This was the mechanism envisioned. Now, if someone did receive a majority in the Electoral College originally, that person would become the president. The person who came in second would become the Vice President but that election of 1800 obviously illustrated that that wasnt practical and so the changes brought on by the 12th amendment to the constitution resulted. In that 12th amendment it provided for separate elections for president and Vice President and in the event that there was not a majority, the top three candidates would then go before the house. The house would vote by states. Each state having one vote. The rationale for that was the same as for the Electoral College. It was to prevent the larger states from dominating the elections. A simple majority in the house would then provide the victor. The physical process of the voting and how it was achieved, how it was counted thats kind of a story for another day. What is pertinent for us today are the 1824 Election Results. There were simply too many candidates. By the time they got to the election in the fall, there were four. Secretary of state John Quincy Adams of massachusetts secretary of the treasury william h. Crawford of georgia, speaker of the house henry clay of kentucky and senator Andrew Jackson of tennessee. The abundance of candidates assured that no one would going to receive a majority in the Electoral College and that was apparent by the late fall of 1824. Accordingly, the 12th amendment kicked in. The top three in the Electoral College vote were jackson, adams and crawford. These would be the candidates before the house of representatives. David we do a tag team thing here, you know. Like in wrestling. Jackson men insisted that jacksons plurality in the popular and electoral votes was a decisive factor in determining the outcome of the house election. In a letter to john overton on december 19, 1824, jackson referred to himself as, quote having been supported by the majority of the people, which wasnt the case. But jackson correctly assumed this wasnt the time for subtly. So with certitude and tenacity, the message was hammered home. Jackson had won the election because of the popular vote, he had won the election because of the plurality in the Electoral College and it was incumbent on the house to endorse these conclusions out of a basic fairness. It was the only way, said the jacksonnites to truly represent the will of the people. Jacksons managers assiduously tried to elevate the relevance of these numbers and its easy to see why. As expected, jackson came in first in the Electoral College with 99 votes but far short of the 131 majority necessary for victory. But it was jacksons significant lead in the popular vote that animated his supporters. 18 of 24 states in 1824 chose the electors by popular vote. Jackson had more than 40,000 votes than his closest competitor, John Quincy Adams and more than 110,000 votes than william h. Crawford, the third place finisher. Lost in the comparison of these figures, however is a reality that not one of these numbers really matters. Only the electoral counts of jacksons 99, adams 84, and crawfords 41, are pertinent to the constitutional prescriptions for referring these men to the question before the house of representatives. The flawed logic in the appeal of the popular vote is made evident by scrutinizing the case of henry clay, who had beaten crawford in the popular vote by more than 6,000. But crawford had won louisiana thanks to some skullduggery on the part of the adams and jackson camps in the legislature. Louisiana chose the electors. And as a result, crawford came in first by winning louisiana and as a result became one of the three candidates who was going to go before the house. This fairly clearly shows that comparing the apple of popular votes to the orange of electoral ones was, in short, a pointless exercise. Because of the complicated nature of this question, which im sure you will all agree is fairly complicated at this point, it would prove a highly effective way of manipulating public opinion. Consequently, the pressure to influence house members with these spurious claims was spence and persistent. The house would not take up the question until february 29 9, 1825, which gave not only the supporters of jackson but also those of adams and crawford to cobble together the simple majority in the house necessary for victory. They also courted one another with promises, seeking pledges of support operatives moving between the operatives of the other two, bending the truth and lying when truthfulness didnt seem to work. The Practical Applications of all of this become evident as a result of what happened in january of 1825. Henry clay, speaker of the house, was strongly inclined to support John Quincy Adams as soon as clay knew he lost the election and he knew it in the fall. He knew it before louisiana. He was deducing that he was not going to go before the house of representatives. As he became aware of that, he only wanted to make certain that adams was supportive of his program, of the clay program for national improvement, before throwing his support to him. To that end, he had an extended interview with adams on the night of january 9 1825. It is possibly one of the most pivotal events in american political history. The details of the meeting are theyve never been made clear. Adams usually recorded things volumeenously and completely in his diary. He does not for this. What is clear is that the results of the meeting were to be devastating to the reputations of both of these men because clay was going to use his enormous influence after this as speaker of the house in the cause of John Quincy Adams. Jeanne there were certainly problems with this meeting. Its context was unfortunate for it took place in the midst of a whirl of proposed deals by all the parties concerned including the jacksonnites. Let me read a couple of passages from our book to illustrate how some of this deal making was going on. Ohio congressman john sloan found himself fitting across a dinner table from sam houston an important jackson operative who mused between bites that ohio would surely go for jackson in the house vote. Sloan was an experienced politician in his mid 40s, a jeffersonian who had preferred clay. His response to houston was measured. He had not spoken to the others of his delegation, he said, guardedly. Sloan believed houston looked anxious as he spoke about what a splendid administration it would make with old hickory as president and mr. Clay as secretary of state. Later, as houston bade sloan farewell he made doubly sure his offer had not been misunderstood. Well i hope you from ohio will aid us in electing general jackson, sloan recalls him saying with a winking repeat of the proposed deal, and then your man, meaning mr. Clay, can have anything he pleases. And then there was the case of daniel cook of illinois. Old hickorys men heard the distressing news that the young illinois congressman, daniel p. Cook intended to vote for adams. At 30 years of age and in frail health he suddenly found himself at the center of an unsettling effort to influence his vote. Illinois was a relatively new state and its small population granted only one representatives representatives representative but since each state had only one vote in the house election, dan cook by himself was as important as all of new york or pennsylvania. Illinois had mostly gone for jackson and old hickorys men forcefully demanded that those general Election Results do more than guide cook in the house vote. He should accept them as the verdict of the people or else. Pennsylvania, jackson man samuel ingham, took this tack with cook. A rumored alliance with adams and clay would be unpopular, he muttered darkly to cook, and it would hurt cooks career to join it. Ingham watched the young man absorb this threat and saw someone not at all weighing his options to cut his losses. Ingham accordingly, switched his mood and smiled benevolently. Cook said ingham could be territorial governor of arkansas if his vote helped Andrew Jackson become president. For daniel p. Cook the offer of the whole world was insufficient to purchase his vote at the cost of his integrity. But arkansas . Ingham knew when to drop it. Now, henry clay was courted by the jackson and crawford men, as well. And the murkiness of these overtures encouraged significant misunderstandings at the time and massive ones later. Clay enjoyed the attention and prolonged it which was unwise. It would be unfortunately easy to conclude in this setting that clay, in meeting with adams, was arrange egg quid arranging a quid pro quo for his support. As the february 1825 vote approached, expectations were high on all sides and there was also a lot of discussion about how should the house consider the candidates. Clearly, the intention of the constitution was to have it act independently of all general Election Results. What, after all, did the framers of the constitution intend . If the house were merely to ratify an Electoral College plurality, why have the house vote at all . An Electoral College plurality would be sufficient to select a winner, if that was the case. But that was explicitly not the case per the constitution. Rather the top three finishers in the Electoral College came before the house equally entitled with none favored over the others by any previous election result. The constitution clearly meant for the house to start its considerations from scratch and then the vote was held. John quincy adams won on the first ballot. Now, there are enormously complicated reasons why this happened and we wont talk about them today but we need only be aware that adams was elected on the first ballot to everyones surprise, mostly to the jacksonnites. Jackson favorite was magnanimous which strikes us at first as an act. Then the very night after the vote jackson and adams came facetoface. Again, from the book. The monroes held their weekly reception and while everyone seemed drained by the experience, they were also grateful that despite the angry talk, broad recriminations and a grinding apprehension, the election in the end had been decided with a calm dignity. The president s gathering was not festive but it was uneventful, which was pleasant for people weary of events. A Kindred Spirit pervaded the whole scene the National Intelligencer reported. The friends of the different candidates mingled together and conversed with a good humor and frankness contrasted with the virulence and malignity which in parts of the country had attended the discussion of this question. President elect John Quincy Adams stood in the center of the room in the midst of a press of people offering congratulations. He received them with a drawn smile and stiff bows. He felt another press of people behind him and turned just as Andrew Jackson turned to face him. The president s reception fell silent. Guests suddenly became conscious of the cramped space and instinctively backed away from the two men to create a small empty circle with them at its center. The last bit of stray laughter and murmuring voices went quiet in the corners of the room. Adams looked up at the gaunt face. Andrew jackson bowed low. He extended his hand. Adams took it. The bow at the reception that seemed promising, as did the handshake. But jackson was actually seething and then the announcement came that John Quincy Adams had named henry clay as his secretary of state. This set off the explosion. Jackson wrote to a friend, was there witness such a bare faced corruption in any country before so you see the judas of the west has closed the contract and will receive the 30 pieces of silver. His end will be the same. Now, a smear can only work if the behavior being decried is exclusive to the target. But this was not the case. Weve already seen, jackson operatives had been working night and day to secure votes for jackson. The example of sloan and cook are just two of a number of instances. And then the activities of James Buchanan nearly did them all in. James buchanan was an insignificant pennsylvania congressman in 182425. He strongly supported jackson and wanted to do something, anything, to get the hero elected. Therefore, he took it upon himself to become a power broker by going to jackson and indicating that clay men might support old hickory if jackson agreed to make clay secretary of state. Jackson refused to commit and there it seemingly ended, at least until after the election, when jackson chose to use that interview with buchanan as proof that clay attempted to sell his support to jackson before turning to adams. Buchanan never supported this version of events and finally he flatly, in the press, denied it, saying that he had never been an emissary from henry clay. This denial presented a problem for the jackson side. It must not be so. Jacksons insistence that this is precisely what happened gives the impression that jackson truly believed that buchanan had done what jackson claimed despite buchanans denials. Jackson continued to insist that clay had sent buchanan. It also points to a strangely unique sense of self and rectitude that guided jackson. Adams and clay were bad. So anything necessary to bring them down was excusable, even laudatory. Now, there were a lot of people that did not believe this smear. Some of them were actually in the jacksonnite movement. Martin van buren, for example, who ran the last part of jacksons 1828 Successful Campaign but he always remained friendly with henry clay. Theres also thomas hart benton, an enthusiastic jacksonite, but he was also mrs. Henry clays first cousin. And then theres Thomas Richie a latecomer to the jackson camp who had actually been a friend of henry clay back when they were teenagers in richmond, virginia. This picture was taken about 1850 when was the year that during a dinner party Thomas Richie actually admitted to clay that he had never believed the corruption bargain smear. They all however, fell into the same camp as jackson supporter Richard Mentor Johnson who said at the time that old hickorys men would oppose adams and clay even, quote, if they act as pure as the angels that stand at the respected of the throne of god. David well, in conclusion lets recall that the nature of a smear is either to fabricate a believable lie, or bend the truth to the purpose of making credibility, otherwise unsupportable allegations. In that regard, the construction of a smear is by necessity counterfactual. A truth becomes an obstacle to the smears purpose or it is made malleable and thus becomes a tool to advance its purpose. At some point in this process and as a result of it, the smear becomes a soulless and corrosive project for those who promote it and those who believe it. Those who promote it and know its origins and purpose must make a Faustian Bargain at the outset and that is the most corrupt, thoroughly corrupt bargain of all. The rationalization that the sacrifice of integrity is justified by the higher good of righting a wrong or stopping an injustice. Jacksons uncanny ability to weave and don such rationalizations was strange and wonderful indeed, but those duped into believing the smear because of their trust in those promoting it have an investment in both the lie and its authors that is as emotional as it is political and that, too becomes an enemy of the truth. The consequences of a lie given life by desire necessity and most strangely of all righteousness, buttressed by circumstance and purpose the lie becomes something more terrifying than an antitruth. It becomes received wisdom. As received wisdom, it transformed into lore not a fabulist tale but a fable. Both instructive and cautionary, a guide to understanding what happened and a warning about the understandings deeper meaning. It is a myth, then, that a lie is a Fragile Foundation upon which no structure can safely stand for long, let alone forever, because a lie properly molded and persistently told can last as long as people are willing to believe it and at some point it becomes immortal because people go beyond willingness to believe to reflexive embrace of it. The lie of the bargain outlived John Quincy Adams still lives in the corridors of our memory. At the time, the charge that there had been a corrupt bargain in january 1825, worked enough malice for a lifetime. It called into question the method of carrying out the election one established by the constitution and sanctioned by all the participants in the election process until. That sort of potency undermines the rule of law, it denames opponents as unfit and corrodes discourse sometimes to the point of violence. All of those consequences destabilize the process of democratic rule. Object lessons abound and Cautionary Tales are rife in this episode one that remains highly relevant to our own time beyond its value as a telling episode from our past. It is worth remembering, as a guidebook for navigating a perilous future. Thank you. [applause] we will take questions now. You say that the lie, the smear, was immortal. What role did it actually play in the subsequent election, the election in 1828 and 32 . David well, it was used to energize the jacksonite movement, the notion that they had been illegitimately deprived of the prize in 1824 by virtue of the house election in 1825, gave a great deal of animation to their efforts and a sense of righteousness to them as we pointed out that pervades every conversation that occurs in the wake of it. Theres hardly an article in a jackson paper that does not work in some way the corrupt bargain into the narrative and as a result it becomes a pervasive and pernicious and completely ubiquitous occurrence that becomes code words. People could say those two words to anyone in the country and automatically knew what they meant. And by virtue of that, they tarred the people targeted. John quincy adams who ironically was probably one of the most probative and had the most integrity of anybody who ever held the office of president becomes a scheming corruptionist. And henry clay, who was a statesman of long standing with a fine reputation as a diplomat, legislator, grand lawyer who took on unpleasant cases for the good of the country and for the good of individuals, was painted as libertine and a poletrune. There were duels fought over this. Clay fought john randoff while he was sitting secretary of state and john randoff of senator from virginia. The motivational factor behind this is incacklable and as a result it does assume immortality that lasts to this day. Does that make sense . What jumped out at me is i see you doing a tag team thing. I wanted to know if there were differences in your styles. Jeanne seems to relish the drama of the moment and david youre setting up the methodology of your approach. When you get to writing, how did that dynamic play out . As cowriters, im interested in it as a piece of history. How did you historians sit down and write a book together and i might point out when youre husband and wife. Jeanne for 37 years. Well, each book we have approached a little differently. Like, for instance, our biography of henry clay, which we will never do it this way again, i started at the beginning and he started at the end. And we tried to come together. We didnt come together exactly the way we thought we should so that took a little bit of work in the middle. The Washington Book and then this book, we wrote to our strengths, the things that we had been most interested in. One of us would write maybe that section. And then we always edit each others book and i will freely admit, david is a much better writer than i am. David no. Jeanne and you are. I am a much faster writer than he is. So what we would do after writing a section we edit each other so that the voice sounds the same so it sounds like one person wrote the book. And weve never had anyone come to us and say, i know you wrote this section, i know he wrote that section. Thats never really happened because of the editorial process that we go through. And then, of course, our editor at the press, has a lot to say about whats included and some of the language and so that helps bring one voice too. Does that answer your question . Yeah, thank you. What does this carolina us tell us about the Electoral College . We have indirect elections in the united states, obviously. Going back to the election we discussed this afternoon so when the voters say, well indiana voted, they voted for the electors. Theres no direct election. But you put up a popular vote count. Could you maybe explain that whole process . David sure, the demockization of politics was well under way before the war of 1812 and it continued to accelerate afterwards. So that the broadening franchise a lot more people could vote. They dropped property qualifications occurred in tandem with the notion to popularize the electoral choice. The period before this the majority of states legislatures elected electors the way they did senators. That changing. There were 18 of the 24 states in 18 twhoor had popular votes 1824, that had popular votes for electors. Louisiana was not one of them. Thats how they were able to control louisiana as much as they did. They were able to detain people from going to vote in baton rouge. They were able to stop them once they got there from voting the way that they were supposed to or had pledged to. Deals were made largely between the adams and crawford people at the encouragement of jackson the jackson men, because jackson was strong in louisiana, but clay was very strong. So they used adams and crawford to blunt his strength and give the vote to crawford who was very much a long shot. That kind of manipulation was possible in state legislatures where it wasnt in the popular vote so the tendency by 1828, this even more. By the end of the period as we move to the civil war the only state by the outbreak of the civil war that still does legislature choice is south carolina. So all of them go to a popular vote as part of the democratization project of the american system. The Electoral College is a wonderful mechanism because it prevents populist states from dictating to others, less populist states. The idea that the federal system imparts sovereignty and an importance to both large and small states that otherwise would be removed in the absence of that. The National Referendum is essentially plevissatory and it would give you a National Executive based on about three or four three or four highly Populated Areas and the rest of the country would have to live under that. The frarms framers saw that would be a recipe for division and ultimately disunion. But the constitution does not bind the delegates. David thats right. Theyre pledged. Pledged to whom until and . In this election, for example david you had clay supporters, jackson supporters and crawford supporters and those people and adams supporters. Those people within the legislature, for instance, would vote for electors who were pledged. They were the ticket. They were the ticket for clay. Or they were the ticket for adams. Same thing in the popular vote. Jeanne if i can interject. In the book, one of the illustrations is one of the tickets. What they would do is they would distribute these whether they were popularly elected or if it was for the legislature choosing, they would distribute these tickets so that the voters if it was popularly elected, would know which man were pledged to a certain candidate. Now, they didnt have to vote the way they were pledged and they still dont. But that would be a recipe for ruined career, if you pledged you were going to vote for jackson in the Electoral College and then you voted for adams then the voters who voted for you would want to exact some revenge on you, whether it was political or business or whatever. So generally speaking, electors have always voted, most of the time, for those people they were pledged to. David there are defections. Its not unheard of, very rare. Jeanne new york had some defections. David and madison had quite a number of defections in 1812, from various states, that just didnt vote for him. They voted for other candidates. But it is remarkable bad faith in the eyes of the people who actually cast the votes. And what the jacksonites did after 1825, they used the 1826 elections as a referendum on the 1824 election and those members of congress, of the house of representatives, who came from states that had voted for jackson and yet voted for adams instead, those legislators congressmen, they were punished. A lot of them were defeated in the 1826 midterms as a penalty for having what the jacksonites said thwarted the will of the people. Trump said the debates, said the election, what do you expect the results of the election most dependent on who won. Did you see parallels as you were writing this . I realize you wrote probably most of this before the last election. But were you seeing parallels with modern day elections . Jeanne jackson never said publicly that adams did not win the election. In other words, he didnt challenge the legitimacy of the election in a legal sense. So i dont see a similarity in that way at all. David yeah, he was his argument was that the numbers had been rigged. Obviously, adams won the house vote on the first ballot and it was close. He took the necessary jeanne 13. David 13 and that was it and new york was a decisive one in that decision. No, that was never the question. And jackson actually was fairly magnanimous in the aftermath of this for about 24 hours and then it dawned on him that something had gone on here that was not right. Its almost as though after the election jackson and his people are trying to figure out what to do next because it was obvious that what it happened was sanctioned by procedure and prescriptions in the constitution. What they did is they seized on their appointment of clay as secretary of state as a mechanism to promote the idea that some corrupt deal had been made and that way they could question the legitimacy of the election through it being rigged to thwart the will of the people. So thats how they worked that out. And thats not an unusual thing in the aftermath. It was unusual at the time. It was an innovation and its one of the modern politics aspects that we explore in the book, that and others, that that is not unusual afterwards. It was highly unusual at the time and its why it really did baffle adams and clay for quite some time, why anyone was taking this seriously, because it didnt make any sense to them. So when it became apparent that it was taken seriously, they reacted rather reflexively and in ways that in some respects was unhinged which gave more credence to the charge, the protest too much sort of thing, you know. Is the story true that at the inauguration adams went to the shake jacksons hand and jackson had rachel on one hand and his niece on the other and said, excuse me, mr. President but my hands seem to be full . David yeah. Jeanne the 1825. David march 25. That did happen . David and that was the last thing he ever said to John Quincy Adams. They never spoke again. Jeanne even though adams would be in congress during jacksons presidency. They never exchanged pleasantries. David in 29, adams did not attend the inauguration. Which was fine with jackson. Hed developed a loathing of adams that matched clay. He hated clay. I can give you the exact moment, at least within the hour, of when clay and jackson came to the figureative blows and lager heads and never had anything to do with each other. It was the afternoon of january 20 1819, and clay stood up in the house of representatives and criticized jackson for invading florida in a threehour address that was masterful but made an inbitterred and durable enemy out of him. Im surprised they never went to dueling. Jeanne there was a lot of talk that jackson would challenge clay over that speech but it was considered bad form to challenge someone to a duel for saying something in congress because you were supposed to have the freedom. Now, clay actually broke that tradition when he challenged john randoff because randoff had actually made an accusation on the floor of the senate in 1826 accusing clay of essentially being a cheater and so he challenged him. So that was unusual. Did they actually fight it . Jeanne they fought the duel. Anyone wounded or anything . Jeanne randoff had decided at least the night before and probably a few days before that he wasnt going to fire at clay partly because friends had tried to talk with him. Thomas hart benton who i mentioned who was mrs. Clays first cousin, had spoken with him. And he was determined not to fire. Clay was very angry and he tried to kill john randoff. In fact, one of his bullets randoff was wearing a really billowing coat for a good reason, so that it wouldnt have a clear target. And one of the bullets went through the coat. He was trying. But then when randoff had his next shot, he shot in the air and that ended it. In fact, they shook hands and seemed to be bossom buddies for about five minutes. David as long as it took randoff to go back to the senate. Jeanne and then he went after them again. If you think that we have interesting news, you can imagine the newspapers covering a duel between the secretary of state and the sitting u. S. Senator. Didnt that happen for years . Jeanne they had been enemies forever. Wasnt it clay the one who ordered randoffs dogs out of the house . Didnt let him have dogs in the house chamber. David that was a standard indulgence for randoff. He would bring his mastiffs in and they would laze about during distributions and when clay became speaker he leaned over to the sergeant of arms when randoff came in and said get the dogs out and they did and randoff was furious with him for that. Jeanne but he never brought the dogs back. David never brought them back, yeah. I think you could do a biography of john randoff. Jeanne hes a fascinating person. A lot of his papers have not survived, whether he destroyed them or family members destroyed them. There are some but theres not a really good collection from start to finish. But hes a fascinating person. David yeah, he would he was he took opium and drank brandy in excess. Would ride his horse pounding down to his plantation which was roanoke, oddly enough, he hailed from bazaar, a plantation of his youth, appropriately enough, and he would wander the halls of this magnificent dwelling with the wallpaper peeling off and paint flecked and everything with a single candle saying macbeth hath murdered sleep. Thank you again so much for joining us. [applause] david thank you, chuck. Its a pleasure. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org. ] announcer history bookshelf features the countrys best known American History writers of the past decade talking about their books. Can you watch our weekly series every saturday at 4 00 p. M. Eastern here on American History tv on cspan3. Announcer each week, American History tvs reel america brings you archival films that provide context for todays Public Affairs issues. Were just going to tell you about our veins and arteries, how theyre like the roads and highways of the body because its through them that the little workers get around to the different organs or factories and do their jobs. Remember, we said your body is really like a city, a model city, in which everything runs smoothly, and will continue to do so as long as its left undisturbed, undisturbed by the invader, disease. You see the wall around this city has a gate through which supplies of Raw Materials must be taken. Suppose, for example that youre loading up a new stock of groceries bread and butter, lots of jam on it, ice cream and cake. This busy peaceful city never heard of the invader. But look, the enemy, its a deadly disease germ all right. But theres only one. What harm can he do against the millions of little workers . Just watch him. Suddenly there are two. Then four. Then there are eight and more to come now we understand why diseases are so deadly. It is because they have the power to transform themselves quickly into gigantic menacing hordes. He doesnt look so harmless now does he . Before you know it, they multiply themselves into millions. Invasion the alarm is sounded, the workers call in to the supply buildings to arm themselves but there arent enough weapons to go around and its only with guns that invaders can be conquered. There is nothing to stop them here because the body is not prepared frantically, the factories are converted to the manufacture of the allimportant weapons but they are far too slow and as the ranks of the invader multiply with terrifying rapidity, we see it is already too late. [music] this city is blacked out forever, yet it could have been saved. You see, boys this city, or rather, this man died because his body did not have arms and ammunition or, in other words, powers of resistance against disease. He was not prepared and he was not prepared simply because he failed to take advantage of the greatest weapon against disease that medical science has to offer, vaccination. Great men in all the countries of the world have struggled year after year, even given their lives, in order that we might live. Jenner, pasteur, cook, and many others have worked to create this harmless little fellow who will protect us. He doesnt look like much, does he . Wait until you see what he can do for us. First, we have to get him into the body and thats where vaccination plays its part. In vaccinating against the deadly smallpox, for example an ordinary point like a dining Needle Presses sideways against the skin letting in a few of the little helpers. But the lookouts inside the body do not know these little fellas are coming. They see their world attacked and strangers entering the city and to them its a real invasion and the army marches forth to battle but in this case theres nothing to fear. Nevertheless, the factories of the body immediately go on an allout wartime basis. Production zooms upward. This time the armies of the body are winning and the war plants have all the time they need to produce armies and ammunition. They work day and night seven days a week, building the weapons to fight disease. Meanwhile, the soldiers are routing the harmless artificial invaders and soon the battle is completely won but look at the tremendous supply of arms and ammunition that the body has made for itself because of vaccination were ready for the invader, let him come now, suppose you should catch some deadly disease right out of the air itself because eating isnt the only way the invaders can enter. They fly around on tiny dust particles or little drops of moisture. Theyre apt to be all around us, anywhere, any time. But if youve been vaccinated you dont have to worry because your body is prepared against the invader no matter which way he chooses to enter. Here they come, Airborne Troops launching their deadly attack, sure of themselves confident in their power. But, brother, theyve got a surprise in store for them this time [music] here we see a moderned Mechanized Army moving into battle equipped with the Deadly Weapons built up through vaccination. [ william tell overture] this is no false alarm, this is a real fullscale invasion. But the army of the body is prepared. Look how the fighters are attacking the invaders, slashing them to ribbons watch them use the firepower to overcome the deadly disease germ. We see perfect examples of military strategy. Susan matthew green, john nance garner, the speaker of the house from 1931 1933 and became fdrs Vice President once said, the speaker of the house job is the hardest job in washington. Do you agree