It is about 90 minutes. Tonight as i said we are partnering with the Hauenstein Center. If you have not heard bill brands speak before, you will be delighted, and if you have been here in the past, youre in for another treat. Please join me in welcoming my colleague, gleaves whitney, director of the Hauenstein Center to introduce our speaker. [applause] thank you very much, elaine, for that warm introduction. We really appreciate our partnership with the ford. It is always a treat. We will continue to bring you excellent programs. That stimulate the mind and heart for public service. Happy washingtons birthday to our cspan audience and our audience here at the ford. Its really neat to be here recognizing washingtons birthday. Its always a pleasure to host bill brands. We have had him back to west michigan so many times i have lost count. He should be awarded a lifetime tenure award. I have probably personally introduced bill more than a dozen times. Each time i go back and check his biography, i learn something new. I want to share those with you. You have probably heard me say that his formal name is h. W. Brands. Did you know that stands for history whiz kid . You probably have heard me say that he earned his phd masters in history, but did you know he also had a phd in mathematics . He knows something that no historians know, and that is if you multiply two negative numbers, like minus three and minus four, you end up with a positive. He understands things like that. You have heard me say that bill is the author of more than two dozen books, but do you know they have been translated to french, german, russian, japanese, korean, and haiku . Maybe he will explain. You have heard me say a third of bills books are devoted to the president s jackson, wilson, fdr, ike, and reagan. But did you know he has also dined with the president s in the white house . You have heard me say that bill met longlived ralph hallenstein for the first time at one of our events back in 2004 and they got along famously, swimmingly. But did you know that ralph urged bill to revise his studies of ben franklin and Andrew Jackson since ralph knew both of them when he was a child . And speaking of childhood, you have heard me say that bill has three children, but did you know that one of them is a historian in his own right that teaches at Johns Hopkins . Finally, you have heard me say that bill has an enthusiastic fan base around the United States indeed, i would say around the world. No surprise, because many of his books end up being a Pulitzer Prize finalist. But did you know his most diehard fans are right here in west michigan . Ladies and gentlemen, bill brands. [applause] s thank you youve taught me some stuff that i dont even know about myself. Thank you for the introduction. So you mentioned my son who is a historian. Some of you in the audience appreciate there is nothing more gratifying for a parent who goes into a field. Initially, he got a boost from being confused with me because he was going into this field. Now i get a boost from being confused by him. So you know sometimes i say will go refer to my son hes the expert on the subject. So its a delight to be back. And i see my friends from previous years, and im thrilled that you liked it enough last time, that you came back. And i specially like the fact, that this is an audience where i can try out, and i can tell you about new stuff. So to some extent you know you owe this to my house, because he doesnt just wait to the book came out. And ive already been giving this talk for a while. So he asked me to talk about the book before its finished. And i wish actually that you had asked me to give this particular top a few months ago. Because i just finished Proof Reading the galleys of the book. And its reached the point where, i really cant make any changes. So one of the reasons, that i like to teach history. Because i teach history to 500 freshman every semester. And it requires, me and encourage me and allows me to think in terms of three questions of American History. And often i find my teaching, its a real boost to my writing. Because when you try to explain something, to someone who doesnt really know anything about it, and a lot of my students and i certainly dont mean to disrespect my students, they come from in a high school, im not saying they dont know any American History. But they dont know enough but they know some. But i have a lot of international students. And they know nothing about American History at all. So i have to explain the civil war in 40 minutes. And you really have to zero in, on what the Big Questions are. So, i like the chance to work through these projects in explaining them to people, who are not specialists on the subject. Thats one of the reasons i insist on teaching introductory students. And i like speaking to groups like this. Because most of you are not professional historians. So i can make something understandable to you, maybe i can make it understandable to my reader. But, i have reached the stage, in this particular book because i say its in i cant make any changes is locked in, so if all speaking to you tonight i come up with a brilliant insight and i couldve used in the book, and you will see the grimace pass across my face, because its like darn i couldve used that. So i will try not to be insightful tonight. And its entirely out of my own self preservation. But i will tell you about this project im working on. And as was pointed out its ironic that here i am on the birthday of the first president , speaking for one of the first times on the subject other than a president. And its going to be published in november, and it makes a wonderful holiday gift, for all your friends who are interested in history, even ones who dont know it yet and im just kidding sorry. Its a book about three members of congress. And these are three senators who are the rock stars of their era. Now i could ask this question to you this doesnt count because its specialist in president s but why is it, of all the presence of the 19th century. Nearly all of them are quite forgettable. Okay some people will remember, jefferson, but jefferson is really remembered not so much for his presidency, because he wrote the declaration of independence. Then you go to Andrew Jackson. Ok hes a controversial figure. But we will remember him and of course lincoln. Then who else in the 19th century. And the answer is im specialist in this, and i have to think carefully about this. One and who is president ok there was phil more, and zachary taylor. Or was it Winfield Scott . Theres a reason for this, and the american constitution was not written with the presidency at the center of american politics. If you pull out your pocket constitution, i soon youll have them you will be reminded that the presidency is described only when you get to article two in the constitution. Article one, the largest article the longest article, is about congress. And the framers of the constitution, assumed and intended, american politics, the american republic, and american democracy, was going to be represented by the house of representatives, and the president was a chief executive. His job was to execute the will of members of congress. President s were not expected to take the initiative. They were not expected to drive policy, they were not expected to be the centerpiece of american politics. That is what was fully expected, that what was intended. So the fact that, it is hard to remember president s from the 19th century, is exactly what James Madison, and alexander hamilton, and George Washington wouldve said thats what we are aiming for. We want these people to be an memorable. The stars of the show, are the members of congress. So i decided to look in on, the three most noted, members of congress. During the first half of the 19th century. This was part of, my continuing recovery from writing biographies. Some of you, who have been here more than once. But for a while, i had this long term project, writing history of the United States through biography. And i eventually, route six volumes in this collection. And the six volumes, began with benjamin franklin, then went to Andrew Jackson, ulysses grant, franklin roosevelt, and ronald reagan. If you read those biographies, they link together to form a history of the United States, from the 18th century to the 21st century. And i started off i thought this is good idea. And i still think it was pretty good idea, and i recommend it to all of you. Every house should have a set. But, one of the things that i concluded, by the time i got to the end of this was, there are certain things that are hard to tell. There are certain stories that are important if, you can can find yourself to just barked the. And if youre writing about president s, and i didnt intend to write primarily about president s, but i did because if you tried to tell the story of United States, a president is a convenient character. But theres a lot going on, if the president is your focus, you cant really get that. And a lot of it has to do with, the give and take of what goes on at the other end of pennsylvania avenue. But when you write about a president , when you write a biography of any kind, you cannot help but give the impression, that the world, revolves around one person. And the world does not evolve around any one person. So i thought lets broaden things out right now, and i was here last year and some of you are here, heard me speak about my first foray into this direction. Instead of running but one person wrote about two people. It was the general versus the president. So this time, i decided to expand it even more. Because one of the nice things, about writing but two people is, you can give two sides of the argument. And you dont have to focus on one side and then just bring the other one in the other direction. So i could focus on mcarthur and truman. And they had this titanic battle. And by allowing myself both characters and bringing both characters up so this time two is better than one three is can even better than to. But there is another walk reason for this. And that is that these three men during their lifetime were often called the great triumphant of american politics. And the term is not always attended to be complimentary. Remember the various were trying to subvert the republic. In fact, this was the intention of some of the people involved of the great triumphants. But also because if you remember your days from high school, you might remember that the relationship between two people, whether its friends or romantic relationship, but theres two people involved and thats a certain type of relationship it gets interesting when you add a third. Theres all sorts of complications that ensue. Thats exactly what i was looking for, and thats exactly how it turned out in these guys les. So from the standpoint, they were very thoughtful in the timing of their lives. So ill tell you a little bit about them because i realized that my three characters although household names during their lifetimes, more over famous than most of the not president s of their lifetimes. Theyre not exactly the sort of exactly household characters these. This three men are three john henry clay, and Daniel Webster and henry someone else. Henry clay accomplished never accomplished a feat never got accomplish before and never repeated. He became speaker of the house, the me how most powerful person in the house of representatives in his very very first day. He was that impressive. He essentially created the role of speaker of the we essentially house, a role that is very important to this day. Henry clay henry clay was from kentucky, he was born in was from that as a young virginia but as fire after a young aspiring lawyer, after getting his training in getting decided virginia, he decided that he would have better prospects as as a lawyer by moving to kentucky which had originally had been the western a which province of virginia. He set up shop are shot in lexington and he went into politics politics young at a very young age. This was also what young ambitious young mandate. Traction like there was an attraction of doing this in kentucky because kentucky was in the state, i was writing a new constitution, it was electing members of the riding constitution and senators. One of the reasons the people went west was the professions they were interested in were crowded in east. And would be professions hard to our breaking the politics in boston or new york. Easters you go to kentucky, everyone else is news so goal you can get a start as well. This everybody is henry clay. So this is john kowloon was from South Carolina john south john john cattle whom like clay was a lawyer kelly. He was born in South Carolina he was educated at yale he a and you went to john calhoun South Carolina and did that those the days. Bill return 79 is in the late and the early 1800s, it wasnt out of the question for a southerner to go north for education but they rarely stayed. Usually they came back home. South carolina eons very proud of their South Carolina routes and john calhoun was like that. Like clay he became a lawyer, but being a lawyer involves people in matters of public concern. The concern between law and politics was well established in those days. And john calhoun decided to go into politics he married well that usually means city married somebody with some money so he didnt need to make much of an income. He could indulge his political interests. And he like henry clay was elected to the house of representatives. This is were pretty much everyone got started. He was distinguished from early on by his very incisive mind, his ability to make forceful arguments. He was a strong partisan. He was a member of Thomas Jeffersons part of the republicans, these days are often called a dramatic democratic republicans, but in those days they simply call themselves republicans. So henry clay was a republican, john calhoun was a republican. The third trio was Daniel Webster. Danny webster was born in New Hampshire, he became a lawyer and he was probably the most gifted of the three. Daniel webster is probably the greatest orator in american political history. One of the things the drew me to these three guys were very powerful speakers, very persuasive speakers. And one of the things it truman right about them was that im kind of a sucker for people who know how to use the language. Im a writer so that makes me interested in that stuff but also one of the things i constantly tell my writing students is that there are styles of language, there are ways of writing. When i chose to write i knew i was going to be transported back to a time when political rhetoric was really important. Now this because, to put it very bluntly there was not a lot else going on. So when Daniel Webster was going to get a speech, this was high entertainment. This is why for example some of you will know of the Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858. This was the big deal and american political life summer of 19 1858. Now how many of you have read any of the linkage douglas debates . Okay, a few. And those of you have read will know that because they would get up and speak if douglas one up first he would speak for an hour. Then doug lincoln will respond for now and a half. And douglas would get 30 minutes to finish up. So it would take all afternoon. So it was going like going to a double feature of the movies. Well back in the thirties, when people went to double features might as well spend year all afternoon because is nothing else to do. Same thing in the 18 fifties. Although the the debates get kind of tedious you know why they get tedious . Because they repeated themselves, from one debate to the next. Why did they repeat themselves . Because they werent recorded, the audience had her before so it was new which meant by the time you got to the seventh debate, you can really have this thing down. This is one of the reasons i was so intrigued by my three characters. This was a time when political speech mattered. I dont know if any of you will ron cspan, so were all fans of cspan. So im sure you glued to cspan when cspan is covering congress. And i know you can turn on cspan most of the time during the week and you can see people getting speeches in congress. Now probably not giving away any state secrets when i tell you that if they pan the camera that theres no one in their. Theres no one listening there speaking simply to the camera because we live in a time and political american institutions have sufficiently matured, one can say theyve grown so rigid, they have evolved in a way so the political decisions are not made on the basis of speeches given in the senate or the house of representatives. Political decisions are made for other reasons, Political Party considerations, lobbyists. But the decisions are not made there in the house and in the senate on the basis of who said what. We live in a very mature, maybe ossoff id system. But in the days of henry clay and john cowan and Daniel Webster this was not so. We had very immature institutions and when institutions are immature, and the rule for individuals is much greater. When henry clay gave a speech, he really did change minds. When henry clay would debate john kyle whom john calhoun and when daniel rubs who would rebut the both of them, people would listen, and they would listen carefully. As a sideline, the speakers would write out their remarks after they giving them and put them into print and sell them as pamphlets and they had a side income in doing this. So this was a time when if you listened to henry clay talk about the need for protective tariffs, he was protests are off. He thought american industry had to be protected from foreign manufacturers. And then you listen to Daniel Webster oppose this. One of the striking things that to me is how sophisticated these arguments were. In, fact i probably give more time to the speeches these arguments than maybe i should have simply because i was very impressed by the details, by the inside of the arguments and how modern they sound. So if you listen to henry clay argue in favor of productive protected tariffs, its essentially the same argument although i will say with old disrespect, to the president at the white house, a lot more sophisticated than the argument donald trump makes for protected tariffs. And when you hill where you hear Daniel Webster say this is a terrible idea, his argument couldve been used and has been used by advocates of free trade which has been americas general policy since 1945. So i digress a little bit to say that one of the reasons i study history and one of the things i try to get across to my students is, why anybody should study history is to be reminded that we are not the first generation ever to walk the earth. Its really tempting to think that whatever happened before it doesnt matter and that our problems are gonna be solved by us. Everybody wants a time ashin. Now most people want to time ashin to go to the future to see what the future is gonna be, that doesnt work and even if we had such a thing there a contradiction in terms. Because if you want to the future you could see the future was but then you come back and change this moment in the now a screw up that future. But we do have a time machine and it goes back to the past. We can see how previous generations have dealt with difficult issues. Now the tariff was a minor issue for most of the time but it also became a very acute issue at a particular moment. Ive introduced my characters. Clay, calhoun, webster. Now notice that calhoun is from the south, South Carolina. The most southern of the southern states. And from the standpoint of those looking ahead and knowing that there is tension between north and south, its South Carolina where the tension always starts. South carolina is the first to succeed. Its the seeds in 1861. Danya webster is from the north. But when he was trying to expand the, move to boston. He is a member of congress who was claimed by both New Hampshire massachusetts. But he is a spokesman of new england. Which is the most northern of the north. Southern part of the south, and northern part of the. North and replace form kentucky. Its a border state so weve got this regional arrangement of the three. And because as i said these three sons are kind of unstable, one of the striking parts of the story is that the alliances the, shifting alliances between the three because at any given time, to are lined up against the other. Which two it is depends on the, time depends on the issue. At the same time, each one is ambitious. Each one would love to be president. Now this is kind of an interesting aspect of the story because as i said, these guys, the three of them were more influential than all but a couple or three president s of the United States. But there is something about ambition that says, its great to be one of their by 1850 the re16 centers 60 skews me. But to be one even if the presidency wasnt as big a deal as it was to become, nonetheless it was tempting. And all three of them are trying to figure out how can i become president . First part of it is personal ambition, part of it is representation of their particular section. So john calhoun eventually becomes a spokesman of all the spokesman of Daniel Webster becomes a spokesman for New Hampshire. And henry clay is want to be trying to bridge the gap between the two. Hes roman dramatics personna. My story evolves around the war of 1812 and a compromise of 1850. The war of 1812 believe it or not begins in 1812. Two of my figures are in favor the war. The cold war hawks. This is a relatively new term in american politics and henry clay and john calhoun are beating the drums for war. America is going to confirm its independence against Great Britain by gone to war. I believe that it is necessary for american pie to take on the british and win. To confirm american nationalism. Danya webster is very skeptical of this project webster believes it clay just wants to conquer canada get more. Let any believes it calhoun wants to boost the fortunes of his republican party. Danya webster is a spokesman of the federalist party, is the party that says, this is where things get complicated. Thats one thing we talk about, is that was one of the things that attracts me to the study of history is the fact that history is like an onion. And you peel it, and you think you see the situation, and then there is more inside. You peel it again and theres more inside. It is always more complicated than you think. So webster, is a spokesman of new england. Which has close commercial ties. Can with england. This is where the story gets interesting, an important for the future. Daniel webster, becomes a spokesman for potentially, the secession of new england, from the union. Now, we think of secession, thats something that the self did, in 1861 1860 1861, you know which brought on the civil war. But one of the major currents of my story is, that this idea of what does the union consist of. One of the obligations of the states to the rest of the country. This was something that was in flux from the beginning. And the fundamental question, gives rise to the civil war. But one thing i should say is, that when i am writing my story, i try to forget that i know what is coming. And im quite serious about this. Because the only way you can understand history, is to abandon hindsight. Because, if we know how its going to turn out, then we dont Pay Attention to what it was like to live through it. To not know, what is going to happen. Now i know, the by the end of my story, the union is doomed. That the civil war is going to come. That is going to have to be fought over to be maintained. So i know this is coming but i have to resist that knowledge. Because my character, and if you did know that, but to them were doing their best to revent the wreck that they saw potentially ahead. The third, john cullen was doing his best to make the wreck happened. But thats another story. So when, we look back on the 19th century, talk about secession, we think about the south leaving the union. And if most of you, im guessing most of your from michigan, do we have im curious to have any southerners in the audience . Okay we have a couple. So i dont expect a unanimous vote on this, but its fair to say that most people in the north today, think that secession was a bad idea. You know i lived in texas for 35 years, and most texans even today, acknowledge it succession wasnt a good idea. I might overstate this, but the fact of the matter is, you associate this with something assuming that the salted. But the first part of the country, to seriously talk about secession, was new england. And it wasnt over slavery, it was about war policy. And the fact that, the war against britain, was destroying new englands trade. New england lived by trade. You can fish, and you can engage in trade. And new england traded a lot with britain. And the vote in favor of the war of 1812, did not include new englands vote. And new england states, especially when the war was going badly, you know all but its lost two weeks, they said this was a lousy idea to go to war. And maybe the union was a lousy idea. So Daniel Webster, who had a very keen legal mind, started making the argument for succession. New england secession. After Andrew Jackson miraculously won the battle of new orleans, webster started to backpedal really quickly. But one of the broader themes that i have is, this question of is secession legitimate. Can the state, interfere with the enforcement of federal law. And again, this is going to be you know is really going to penned on the south in the 1860. And this is the justification for Abraham Lincoln, fighting in secession. And it came up first from my guys, in the war of 1812. He came up the second time, in the early 18 thirties, when South Carolina, threatened to leave the union. Not over slavery, but over the tax. Tariff. Yes tax. And they thought peter people can get that work took over a tariff, and what is yes. If you have to summarize the causes of the American Revolution, in in forwards, what was a slogan . No taxation, without representation. The American Revolution was all about taxes. And South Carolina, was ready to leave the union, because they didnt like a tax bill. That congress had passed. And this because, well, john kelly soon, had this well articulated theory, of how the union had been created by the states. And tell whom, made he actually laid the groundwork for succession, based on the rights. And the question, of the underlying question here is, and its a question that is still with us, although thankfully not in such an acute form. But the question was in our federal system, we have a Central Government and we have statement. Which level of government, is supreme. When push comes to shove, to the states get their way, or does the National Gover meant get its way. The National Government. So the constitution is vague on this. So essentially can states leave the union. Can this constitutionally leave the union. The constitution is silent on this. Why is the constitution silent on this, well everybody that the constitution knew, that this could be a difficult issue. This could be a problem. But they remain silent. And why did they remain silent you know and generally why do . Politicians remain silent. Politicians are not a silent group. Because he needed to get it done. They knew it, and they wrote in that theres a mistake clause here, and that would ruin the whole project. Because the whole project was to create a stronger government. But if they said you cant leave, and half the states would not have signed. So they deliberately fudged it. And they kick the can down the road. And they left it to my group. Three guys, and the title of my book is going to be, heirs of the founders. The people who inherited this project. So one fundamental problem with the constitution is, what they had to deal with, is what is the relationship between the Central Government between that and the state. The second one is started 1930. Theres another fundamental flaw in the constitution. So lot of people like to revere the constitution, its a big step forward. But the framers of the constitution knew, that there were two huge fudges. Or basic what should i say, silences in the constitution. One is his question of, what a conflict arises between the states in the feds who winds . And they deliberately left that silent. Because they knew whatever they said it would screw up their project. The second one was, how to slavery exists in a republic . A republic is based on, the will of the people. And political power is opposed to emanate from the people, and governments must represent the people what. So they say but you know people are not citizens, and are not represented. So the framers knew, that this was a fundamental problem. So why dont they deal with it . What did they say lets get rid of it. Because they wont have gotten their constitution in 1789 if they have answered this. So what do they do . Well they basically took the position that benjamin franklin, articulated when he came out of the constitution convention. He said this is not a perfect constitution, but its the best we can do under the circumstances and we will leave it to our heirs, to fix the problem. And theyd come a long way from 1776. But they knew that they hadnt finished it. There was work to be done. So the work was done by, my guys. And i will tell you that, well i would say that they did their best maybe to the extent that people who are ambitious people who have strong opinions and people who are torn by the kind of personal tugs unprofessional accomplishment, and these are cuffed wrong willed people. And my story progresses through from the war of 1812 through the crisis of 1833 to it culminates and it culminates with the compromise of 1840. Assorted the compromise of 1850. So people on both sides, north and self had to compromise their issues to come to some kind of agreement that would blow up the union in 1850. And this gets at what i will call the underlying moral question of this whole story. And one of the reasons you know the political aspects of this but the question is this its a question that is most clearly personified by henry clay. Henry clay somebody who in our with thinking, is a contradiction in terms. He is an emancipation assist slave holder. He owned slaves and he does not believe in the institution of slavery. So now again what about this how does that work. So henry clay, inherited slaves. He lived in a society in kentucky was a slave state where this was the way that were gotten but he believed slavery, was bad for bad for slave holders. He believed it demeaned manual labor, and it was going to be and it is going to be worst worse than a problem it was going to be apparel to the union. And he tried again and again to get kentucky to end slavery but he didnt win the argument. If he continued to work against slavery, even as he worked to hold the union together. He had to make this decision henry clay did, and its a fundamental decision for anybody who lives in a Democratic Political system. And the question the anybody who is in a community. So what do you do . When you believe your community, your country your state, is doing something fundamentally wrong it might be misguided and it could be downright evil so what do you do . Do you throw up your hands and say i have no responsibility and chart your own individual path . Not if youre somebody who believes there is a role for statesman. Because henry calais believe that, slavery must disappear from the union. And it would. But he also was one who fundamentally disagreed, with abolitionists. Who said that slavery has to end now. Because clearly understood, that the abolitionist had their way if they had their way, in slavery were enough congress could vote to abolish levy right now, then 30 seconds after that, a war would break out between the north and south. And henry clay believed, that is bad slavery was, and the meaning of slavery was, it wasnt as dangerous to personal liberty and for the welfare of humanity, as the destruction of the union. For henry clay, almost any compromise was unacceptable in order to hold the union together. Because he looked at the union, and the union that he and his other contemporaries had inherited from the likes of George Washington, and said we need to preserve union. The union is the sheerest guarantor, of personal liberty. And if we have to compromise, a while longer, we will do that. And maybe im not gonna give much away, when henry clay i say was the model, of what Abraham Lincoln wanted to become. And Abraham Lincoln, was one who also believed, that we have to hold the union together. We can eventually get rid of slavery, we can preserve. America at the union falls apart, then all bets are off. The story ends for me with the compromise of 1850 which is this great effort to solve all the problems confronting the country. It was this big package deal. And all sorts of issues were tied up and henry clay believe that it was a great accomplishment of his career. He had held the union together. In fact, the union didnt hold together very much longer. My guys they die. The three of them die within 18 months between 1853 1952. Im not saying if they had lived things would be different. But henry clays hope for the union was dashed on the rocks on the election of Abraham Lincoln in the secession of the south and the civil war. Ill stop there in part because we want to know what . I i am working on a sequel. Which is gonna carry it up to the civil war. So i leave you all hanging at the end of the book. Whats gonna happen next . Hey guess what . I want time for questions so if you can ask me question, i will repeat the question so that everybody can hear so right here sir. Good evening, their branch of government jon marshall whats a relationship . Im glad you asked. That the question is what about the third branch of government. You mentioned Jean Marshall other people call it additional branch. But in this period jon marshall is the Judicial Branch. In fact this is a very important part of my story. I devoted chapter to Daniel Webster and Jean Marshall. John marshall was chief justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835. He essentially created the mom supreme car and has he created the idea that the Supreme Court to stand in review of the actions of the legislative branch and the executive branch. For the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch is the one that gets to say yes, no, unconstitutional, constitutional. The Supreme Court quart was created by him today. It wouldve shocked and surprised founders of the constitution that what the courts get to Tell Congress what congress cannot do. Its not written in the constitution. Jon marshall has to work between the lines to come up with that. And his principal collaborator, one can almost say his coconspirator was Daniel Webster. Danya webster was the most celebrated and the most aptly caused compensated lawyer of his day. In fact, webster on sundays he would in the morning going argue a case before the Supreme Court and then in the afternoon he would go to a speech in the senate. So the story of webster and marshall and the creation of what you call modern judicial nationalism, the idea that the constitution is really as strong as its going to become is owes to jon marshall and danny webster. And it also demonstrates webster had his oratorical fine fine us. I have webster arguing all bunch of important cases cases. Webster was not alone. He was basically hired gun who would be brought in to argue before the Supreme Court because it was such a powerful speaker. He would fall the case fairly casually and then he jogged down a few notes and then a top for four hours and would mesmerized the audience in the court i was sometimes freeze the justices. And in the case of Dartmouth College his speech was so poignant that there was a yale law professor who went to watch because he knew that webster was this very powerful speaker. But he also knew that John Marshall is not a pushover for anybody. You heard the webster sometimes tried to play on the notions of his audience. Anyway this isnt gonna work with john. Marshall swede goes down any watches. Hes mesmerized and he sees that the members of the court or mesmerized as well. I want to finally comes to the end, when webster says its a Small College speaking of Dartmouth College, which was beaten up taking advantage of of the state of New Hampshire. At the end when webster is concluded this kept nickel law professor looks and he sees to his amazement that John Marshall is weeping, the Daniel Webster had that effect on people. So it is an important a large part of my story. Somebody else and a question. Yes sir. I just wonder what you thought would be if you think as a society we believe we are today without the civil war . Holder who didnt believe in slavery he salted slavery would go away. He observes slavery go away and his lifetime in the north. When he was born, slavery was allowed in every american colony and in every american state before independence. But generally and its slavery was phased in through emancipation. New york ended slavery but there are still slaves as late as 18 thirties. It was a face kind of emancipation. Which was what henry clay was arguing for. I mediate emancipation would be fired wall sorts of people, starting with the slavery, including some of the slaves themselves. If youre a 65 year old slave in all of a sudden you get emancipated, you get thrown out of your house unity . But henry clay blame that the north had emancipated its slaves not out of any reason a philanthropy because of the northern economy no longer found slavery profitable. Or to put it another way, one of the famous generations, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, all this sleigh voters believe that in the 17 eighties that slavery was a necessary evil. It couldnt figure out how to run the southern economy without it. Many northerners held the same view but they figured out how to do it without using slaves. Washington, jefferson, henry clay all hoped that slavery would be and anachronistic in time and this is why henry clay said after the compromise of 1850. He had been the author of the compromise of 1820, the missouri compromise. The results held for over 30 years with the abolishment of slavery in the northern territories. And he says if this holds for 30 years then we have will have the result of the problem. The Industrial Revolution really was what ended slavery or precisely, it ended slavery in other countries. And 1800, nearly 18 nearly every country in the world allows slavery to exist legally. And most cut you see a big deal. Thats just the way it works. And 1900 a century no countries allowed legal slavery. So between 1800 and 1900, slavery disappeared. It was only in the United States that the ending of slavery wreck seemed require this horrible war that killed over 600,000 people. So you have to start thinking that maybe there was a way you could end slavery without a civil war and clay thought there was. If we could simply keep the union together for another 20 or 30 years then southerners wouldve come to the same conclusion that northerners already had. We dont need this institution anymore and if you indulge me for a moment further, if the south had ended slavery without it had been imposed by the north, without the need for the 13th amendment. It didnt need the 13th amendment for the massachusetts to freed slaves. And would not have had the same for South Carolina rainy the southern states. So if South Carolina had freed the slaves and their own, then opposition to things like education for the former slaves would not have been seen as a badge of southern honor. Anything that gets imposed from the outside, by those northern aggressors is something the patriotic southerners will be able to resist. And as you, know until the 19 sixties, southerners didnt like the idea about being told what to do on race relations. But if southerners had been allowed to conclude on their own slavery was a bad deal, then they wouldve been able to invest in the education of the slave. Im not guaranteeing that that wouldve happened but there is an alternative scenario. This is exactly what henry clay was aiming for. By the 18 fifties, he died in 1850, this is exactly would john calhoun was hoping would not happen. Because by 1850 john calhoun at concluded that South Carolina must leave the union. He was simply hoping for an excuse to do it. The excuse came with the election of Abraham Lincoln. Im gonna write about Abraham Lincoln and, its gonna be a two summits dead of a three. Some in the back. Knows the name of john c cal who won okay so the question is what about the campaign at Yale University to eliminates john calhoun from one of the buildings . I dont remember how far that road they are. But anyway, cal whom attended yale so at one time he was considered a distinguished alumnus of yale college. And these days of course john calhoun he is seen as the arch apologized for slavery. Ill just tell you that my general view of erasing names unvibnn,kh confederate heroes, that will be Thomas Jefferson, that will be George Washington. How zak . In the capital of the United States is named for a slave hold. If we try to go back and impose the standards of the president on the pass, and there is no end. In the thinking of those people who are most in favor of this, there is an incipient perfectionism that at these people are about in the score, then theres somebody else whos bad on another score and then i would despair of putting up statues of anybody for anything. Because however much a model citizen they can be today, i can carry guarantee other some people to honor john calhoun. Hes still one of two statues and South Carolina in the capital. Theyre not really trying to poke a finger in the eye of anybody else, but john calhoun was an important figure in the history of the United States. I have a modest proposal that actually proposed to the president of my university. I said dont take down the statue, just make a very modest change to each statue. Go around to each statue put a little plaque about this big the simply has the year in which the statue was erected. I thought, to this and then all of a sudden ive got this outdoor history lesson. So people can walk around and see that the statue was put up to Jefferson Davis on the tee campus was erected in 1929. What does that tell us . Jefferson davis was not a texan but texans in 1920 were trying to make a political point by recognizing Jefferson Davis. But it does to. Things one, it tells us when it gives up and it gives us in an idea into the minds of people went up, but it also absolves the president of these things that went up 100 years ago. This is the justification for taking down all the stuff, or changing these names. We dont want this generation to seen as honoring these people whose values we dont share. And thats fair and off if youre putting up something new today. Okay, yale or the university of texas wouldnt erect a statue to Jefferson Davis surname a college for john cal whom today. But to somehow pretended never did, i think that it does a disservice to my history students, if only because, so on the campus of the university of taxes to used to be these confederate statues. Well since its the confederate statues went up, their statues tomorrow luther king, block congresswoman from houston, theres a statue to cesar and if the statues were still all there with the dates then you can walk around and see what the administration of the university of texas valued at different times in history. But now you go around, i would like to think of taking teaching history to my students, but we learn a lot of hay about history from our environment so the environment says there never was a silver war, slavery never existed the fact you can see Jefferson Davis honored in the 19 twenties and then barr bury the great granddaughter of slaves honors in the 1990s that says something about the history of the state of texas. So, thats my excuse. Long answer to assure. Question next question. What is your response to this idea that the statues you mentioned 29, this is a time of heavy jim crow and this was and they referred to it in public stations to make the Statement Today to the blackam populatio, we are in charge. And those statues should be preserved from the public domains into museums that preserves a case of Jefferson Davis theres a separate argument as to the artistic merit of the statues. These particular statues included some who were by a very distinguished sculpture, he did a lot of stuff in texas. And so, it wouldve been an artistic shame, and artistic crime to melt into. So Jefferson Davis was moved into a museum on campus and theres something to be said for the, but theres two things to be set against it. One is not my students, i am gonna, say they avoid museums like the plague. They will never see that statue. Otherwise they had to work walk past Jefferson Davis every day. Second, thing this is maybe a minor point, but statues are designed, statues that go up on pedestals, they are designed to be seen on pedestals. Ill give you one example. My older son pat who is now a distinguished professor, and he used to be little kid. When he was little, kid there was a moment when texas, i live in austin, and the state of texas was refurbishing the capital. On top of the capital theres not this a theres this goddess of liberty. This white statue about 14 feet tall or so, its designed to be viewed from the top of the capital and youre down below. But it was a down when they were gonna take the statue down and they were getting at one of those big heavy duty rotor helicopters. So is a big deal, theyre gonna lift it off. He was a note four years old and took him in the strong off we went. Watch the helicopter, they put the candles over the statue, and the target away, and the motors going around whirling a statue stuck. So people are asking is this gonna go happen or not . So they finally yank it they bring it they fly around a little bit, and then they lower it onto the grass of the capital grounds. And so i was able to make use of my little kid. Can we get into the fronts we can see it . So i work my way to the front and how takes one look at the statue and bursts into tears because i dont know whether any lie love it fans in the house . I think the song is called shes hot to go, and he sees this woman from behind, she thought to go but at the end of the song he comes around its probably wouldnt pass muster in the stain agency says he comes around and he says but she was ugly from the front. And then theres this female voice comes in says well you ugly to so when a house saw the statue, it was ugly. Why was it . Oddly because it was designed to be seen from 400 feet away and an angle of 45 degrees. Its like stage makeup if you ever go up close. Its supposed to be seen from the last row of the theater. Ive been the scene Jefferson Davis and the museum and hes ugly from the front. But the larger reason is that you take them out of your native environment and it sort of solves the problem but not really. Because you said very aptly in this is true that it was created to say we are in favor of segregation of races. But i want to my students to know that there was a time that the university they attended was run by in their section of the country that was in favor of segregation. If you believe in progress, you have to know what your progressing from. And theres no other memory from which to judge against Martin Luther has a statue on the campus. Well big deal. Well it is a big deal, because that statute was not in place there six years before. Thats why my little suggestion of putting the time stamp. It was rejected in the statues went down. Yes. We were talking about house of representatives exposed to the senate. And when it became Vice President that affect the relationship when it became Vice President. Up nurse or so each one eventually went into the executive branch. And john calhoun was one who was one of the sneaky east ones in the sense of succeeding. Henry clay was the one who came closest to being president. Here we are in a president ial library. We need to people of America History who are three time losers for their party as nominees of their party in races for president. And one was henry clay lost in 1824, 1832, and 1844. Who is the only other three time loser in American History . I dont ticket to Carroll William Jennings Brian there you go. And theres something actually important in this. This is no longer the case but if there are any baseball fans in the audience there wasnt one time a phenomenon of this actually did happen, being a 20 game winner used to be the standard of excellence. But what was really strange was occasionally there were 20 game losers. Well you, have to be good enough to be in their regular rotation and you have to be bad enough to lose 20 games or lease play for a lousy team. So that sort of accounts for threetime losses. But john calhoun managed to be Vice President of the United States. He was one of five people running for president in 1824 five people running yeah because the first part of the system had broken down, second parted system of democrats, federalist and republicans broken down. The second part of system democrats had an originated. The people and groups could nominate who over they wanted, so theyre five people running. John calhoun realized he was in to make the final so he dropped out and let it be known that he would be delighted for number two slot. So he managed to leverage that into Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. They all agree that he was going to be Vice President. He became Vice President under John Quincy Adams. He wanted to run again under 1828, but 1824 was when jackson was the plurality winner of the election vote and the popular vote but didnt win when the race went to the house of representatives. Mcallen said im number two and you never know he might dire this might be a steppingstone to something so managed to fun angle his way under the vote of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson when theres a rerun in 1828. Socially case in American History were a Vice President under the president of one party becomes Vice President immediately of the other party. But it gets complicated because meanwhile behind the scenes cal whom is conspiring in the undermining of federal authority. I was Vice President , calhoun secretly urging those South Carolinas who want to secede. And jackson is doing everything you can to keep South Carolina from succeeding. The climax of the tension occurs when its Anna Jefferson dinner, the jeffersonians, the republicans who are about to be called democrats, they met every year. I think they may be they given up here a back a year ago. Both jefferson and Elise Jackson and become miley tack toxic to most democrats. To they do it anymore . Jeffersonjackson dinner . Okay, like president sday instead of washingtons birthday. So the jeffersons day dinner and 1832 when the crisis of South Carolina is developing, the democrats all get together and they toast Thomas Jefferson and the principles in which the union was built. And these tests indicate their position of various events of the day. Those people who support South Carolina they endorsed jeffersons kentucky resolve. Now were getting a little bit into the weeds jefferson in 1798 orders in the state of right. It was in response to the alien sedition ads which was a grievous of the first amendment. But the Supreme Court had not declared the principle that we get to declare constitutionality. So jefferson and James Madison do the same thing for virginia. They say states get to be the ones to do this. And thats exactly what kowloon was saying for South Carolina the. Right South Carolina to to this clear the constitutionality. Some of them are in favor of the kentucky resolution. This is sort of an indirect support for calhoun. But the climax of the night comes when the president of the United States Andrew Jackson is going to speak. Because there is the schedule toss and then the unscheduled tells. And the president didnt always attend this event. But jackson did on that night. He made very clear that he was not gonna let the union be broken up. And so would jackson steadily, as president is the first one for the unscheduled toe. So everyone looks at jackson whats gonna . Say jackson by this time is showing his age is not a good health he never was a public speaker. And so he didnt speak loudly, didnt speak forcefully he was no match for the others and he stands up the, audience is bigger than this its in a hotel in washington and everybody is absolutely silent to see what Andrew Jackson is gonna say. Jackson holds up his glass and says, while staring exactly at john calhoun, he says our federal union it must be preserved. So calhoun is up next and hes the Vice President and hes got to answer back. He has to answer to jackson as well. So kowloons gonna, think his jackson and said what he was gonna say and he had the chance to prove prepare in advance but columnist a figured out on the spot. Kowloon. He raises his glass and he says, the union and for a moment everyone thinks hes capitulated. Andrew jackson is carried. Today he repeats the union, not next to our liberty most air. Well thats quite a qualification. Is it that point the jackson decides that calhoun has to go. Now its complicated by a story that is almost related olive into. You basically a wife of one of the members of jackson cabinets could not get along the wives could not. This is because one woman Peggy Margaret eaton was, i dont know how to say this with the kind of sign a kind of caddie, but she was prettier than the other members, the other wives of the cabinet. She also grew up in an in and she didnt have a mother so her father ran the hotel and she grew up there. She was kind of flirtatious she got better tips. And so she was seen as this woman of loose morals. And because she had loose morals, and she subsequently married a guy who became a member of jacksons cabinet, then the other wives of the cabinet members refused to attend her dinners, refused to be at receptions with her and the ringleader of this opposition to peggy was low ride a calhoun John Calhouns wife. But it started because as jackson saw, that calhoun could not control his wife and his wife was casting aspersions on peg eaten. Now this requires me to tell a little bit about jackson and as women. As mother died rescuing him from a prisoner of war camp in the revolutionary war. Jackson believed that his mother was a saint. And then his wife you i because she means slandered during the campaign of 1828, and during the strain of all this citizen jackson could not stand the idea that a defenseless woman would be defamed. If jackson had been alive today, he would have said, i believe the women. And this was jacksons view. When peggy said she was blameless, and john eaton said they were blameless, he said i believe you. All these people saying that she was not, they cant be part of my administration. So he couldnt fire his whole cabinet, eventually he did. He couldnt do it all wants. The cabinet was paralyzed. And you might think, the business of the United States cant go forward because there is this fight among the women. It was called the petticoat war. This is part of the story, i will conclude, i should probably draw to conclusion that i will just say that Andrew Jackson is one of the Major Subsidiary characters. And his attitude, he didnt have much in particular against webster, but jackson was asked on his deathbed, he was dying in 1845, what he would do differently. Could he live again. He said, if i could live again we, i would hang with john calhoun and shoot henry clay with. We will leave it at that. I have one more thing to mention. You are about to hear from the group that is going to honor no, wait. I just want to say a word about ralph hamill stein and what he is meant to me. Mostly through the center. I was privileged to be able to meet ralph. This was now 15 years ago, thereabouts. I really didnt know much about him. I am not for michigan, but i came to learn about his fascinating and important career. I was particularly interested in what he had to say about his commander during world war ii. About Dwight Eisenhower. In my first book, it was about Dwight Eisenhower. I spent a lot of time studying eisenhower at the library, reading everything i could read about Dwight Eisenhower and recreate the man from the paper trail that was left behind. The time i was writing, there werent very many people left who had known eisenhower. I didnt really get a chance to talk to people who knew him. For the historian, that can be absolutely crucial. There are times when it is utterly impossible. When i wrote about benjamin franklin, nobodys life, so you do what you can. But when i met ralph, he could tell me kind of commander eisenhower was. Ive heard other people talk about it. Here is someone i can actually ask questions. And he would tell me about he would fill in the personal human details that often falls between the cracks of the paper record. It was immensely valuable to me. Actually, i wish i had known him when i was writing the book. But he was wonderful to talk to. He was very approachable. You will hear more about his career, but i would just say that for all the good work he did while he was alive, his good work continues in the now with funded center. I had a chance to know him, but i can say that ive been a great beneficiary of the great work he has done for michigan week. And indirectly, anyone who is interested in world war ii and anything related to Dwight Eisenhower. You will hear more about that, but that is just my two cents. Thank you so much, youve been wonderful audience. applause up next on lectures in history on lectures in history, Arizona State University Professor Jonathan Barth teaches a class about the rise of Andrew Jackson and his presidency. He focuses on jacksons clashes with whig Party Members like henry clay and Daniel Webster. In the bank wars of the 18 thirties. This is about 55 minutes. Good morning, everybody. And welcome to American History, my name is Jonathan Barth, and i am a history professor at Arizona State university in