Thats a list according to publishers weekly. Youre watching booktv on cspan2. Here is our prime time lineup for tonight. Rachel sheldon report on the political at fear in washington, d. C. , in the 18 40s and 1850s. The author reports that the personal relationships forged by many of the politician of the day impacted legislative writing and left lawmakers ill prepared for succession. This is about half an hour. Thank you for coming. Its great to see some familiar faces and others and its great to be at one of my favorite bookstores. Ive been coming here for a long time. I appreciate the invitation. Its really appropriate for us to talk about the role of whatd here in capital. In the midst of the civil war. It commemorates 150 years of the civil war which lasted four bloody years and captured the lives of more than 700,000 americans north and south. And when we think about the civil war, its typically with a sense of the divisive relationship between north and south. And the violence that captured the nation well before the war began. And washington, d. C. , has long served as sort of the epicenter of that discussion when we think of the coming of the civil war probably our morse common picture of the caning of Charles Sumner, an antislavery senator from massachusetts by Preston Brooks of the floor of the senate in 1856. Im going talk about this in a minute. Tonight i want to talk about how the picture of washington as violent and divisive is actually misleading a instead real key to understanding washington in the mid 19th seize i have to recognize that in many ways it operated more like a social fraternity hence the name washington brotherhood. Politicians came to washington from around the country to a city that does not look much like what we see today. It was dirty, it was dusty, it was gross. It was not a vacation destination. Depending upon the session, they would spend up to nine months living together in hotels and boarding houses, scattered across pennsylvania avenue from the capitol up to the white house. They talk to each other at party and balls and state dinners and hotel bars across the city as well as in social and religious clubs. And i want to highlight two key consequences of the close knit Washington Community. First, it produced Something Like a social and political code in washington. A set of norms for Political Behavior that goes outside the capitol city didnt really understand. Even though those people who didnt really like each other much tended to treat each other in the same way as you would imagine a fraternity to operate. You kept things in the family. The experience of living in washington insulated politicians from the outside world. They understood the sectional conflicts of the mid 19th century in the context acrosssectional cooperation in washington. What this meant in practice for the antebell lum peed many southern poll ties were unprepared for the speed at which succession told hold in the winter of 1860 so depending upon your view of washington, you might call this inside the beltway mentality before the beltway even existed. So i want to highlight these two features of Washington Society in the 19th century. The role of the social code and the way in which politicians were isolated with the couple of stories. Then hopefully youll have some questions for me. So let me start with the social and political code of washington and particularly the code that economisted in the capitol itself. When we think about congressional policy making in the 21st century. We generally think about capitol hill and maybe even the capitol itself as a place where poll tieses give important speeches and hammer out deals. This may surprise you but in the 19th century almost nonof that happened in capitol itself. There are a number of reasons for this. Im going to focus on the house of representatives here to make my point a little bit easier to illustrate. In the antebellum period they averaged about 240 men. Coming from all regions of the country. And it was very hard to corral all the men attentive and sober to listen to a speech in the house of representatives. Of it sometimes hard to maintain a quorum, a majority of the members of the house. There was no system of bells like there is today where you can sort of get people to come in and take their seats. Typically accepting case of an important vote or very, very famous speaker. You only had about twothirds of the house in session. The rest of the politicians were out of town or they were hanging out elsewhere in washington, d. C. Many of the exciting bars and brothel and other places in the area. Or they could be in the capitol getting drunk at the hole in the wall, which was a little tavern in the basement of the capitol. If you are unlucky enough to get a seat at the back of the house, you probably couldnt hear what was going on. Remember, there were no microphones in the mid 19th century. And when you have that many people, youre not going to be able to hear as well. The acoustics in the house were not very good. People complained about this. If you got one of the seat in the back, you were just out of luck. Those in the house i. T. Were also not necessarily paying attention. And this is an important part of thinking about the way that washington politicians understood what was around them. When you were living as a politician in the 19th century. You didnt have a staff the way you would today. You didnt have people taking care of your correspondents. Who were keeping in touch of your constituents. So you had to do all of that yourself. Which meant that a lot of times it happened in the capitol i. T. People would write letters home, letter to their wifes. They wouldnt Pay Attention to what was going on on the floor. They would be corresponding. If they didnt feel like listening they could take to their neighbors or sleep or whatever they would want to do. Congressmen didnt feel bad about ignoring the speeches because the real politicking didnt happen in the capitol i. T. As a result, most of what happened in the capitol fell in to a category of 19th century speech making that congressmen called bunk the origin of the word bunl comes from this. The definition of the speech make was basic gliffing a speech on a bill or an amendment that basically had nothing to do with what was going on in the house itself. But was strictly made for the purpose of pleasing your constituents. And every congressman in the 19th century made the speeches. Frequently. This was part of the experience of living in washington and understanding the way things worked. You wanted to please your constituents and so you would make these speeches. In fact, it was so well accepted that congressmen would make the speeches that sometimes they wouldnt even make speeches. They would write them out and hand them to the reporter and the reporter would put them in the congressional record. Nobody complained. It was part of the experience of working in washington of working in the house. Working in the house. This was a part of the congressional code. We have to think about how washington operated as being outside the capitol i. T. Take it back to charles i want to remind you a little bit of the details of the caning of Charles Sumner. Its a particularly colorful moment in our history. There had been much fighting in kansas as a result of the kansas nebraska act of 18954. In 18 of a had gotten particularly violent. And Charles Sumner, a massachusetts senator got up in the senate and delivered a speech that was very much accusatory of the south. He called a rape of kansas. They were frying to influence the votes there. He also said some pretty nasty things about a man named andrew pickenningsbutler who was a senator from south carolina. Butlers cousin was serving in the house at this time. A name by the man of Preston Brooks. Brooks didnt take kindly. He didnt hear the speech. He read about it and thought of it a problem. He decided to confront sumner. Sumner completely unwittingly avoided brooks for some time. It happened they passed each other at times where brooks couldnt talk to him after a couple of days brooke got angry, he waited for sumner at the back of the senate, and he went up to him once the galleries were clear, and struck him over the head with his cane more than 30 times. Sumner fell in to the aisleway in the senate and had to leave the senate for some months to recover. So this is a story that has long been told as something that proves how divisive washington was. And certainly it became divisive outside of washington. It became divisive in the north and the south. If we look more closely at washington in this period, we can see that it is part of a larger culture of violence and vice in the capitol. That was not so shocking to the people who lived at that time. It was part of the social and political code that im talking about. As i mention washington is not vacation destination. Its grubby place to live. Its not suitable for ladies. People talked about it all the time. It was more of a mans place. This made it more of fraternal experience. Men engaging in drinking and gambling and other rubbing cuss activities without the eyes of their wives on them. And i just want to give you a couple of examples of this. We talk about the drinking that happened in the capitol but there were also a fair number of congressmen who drank in the house of representatives itself. If they felt like having a drink while they were listening to speeches, they might call the page and have the page bring in some drinks. Several congressmen were known for being drunk while serving. While speaking. And Preston Brooks, you know, our story of the caning of Charles Sumner was also probably drunk still from drinking very heavily the night before when he struck sumner. There was also a substantial amount of womanizing that took place. Some of the most famous congressmen from the 19th century Danielle Webster and john c. Calhoun were rumored to have women on side. This is another example how it fit within the washington code. The political and social code. Because people didnt talk about this to the newspaper. It wasnt all over cnn. It was something people kept within the family. Within the fraternity. There were a number of examples of people getting involved with each other. Spouse. One of my favorite example may sound familiar to some of you. Was the between the wife of a man by danielle fickles. A north new york democrat and the u. S. Attorney for the district of columbia, Philip Barton key. D. C. Politicians tried to keep this out of the papers. They didnt talk to anybody about it. Its not like reporters were reporting on what happened between these two lovers. People whispered in washington. Fickles found out. He accosted Philip Bartonkey in the matter of lafayette square, shot him, and turned himself in to the district attorney. Hes very famous, now, forking with the first person to be acquitted because of temporary insanity. But this was a good example how we can learn about this today but it was something that was kept secret for a long time. As a story of fickles tells you, violence was also a pretty regular part of the washington experience and not just between northerners and southerners. Some of you might be thinking that southerners the ones more violent. Not true at all. Northerners were just as vie violent. One of my favorite stories of violence took place between william english, a democrat from indiana, and william montgomery, a democrat from pennsylvania. Montgomery was apparently unhappy about something because he refused to say hello to his former friend exclaiming i speak to no puppy sir. They had great lexicon in the 19th century. English didnt like his reaction, he was a slight man where month gum i are was about 200 powbdz. And so he lifted up his cane and smacked him over the head with it. Montgomery fell over, and seeing a loose brick on the ground threw it at english and they got in to a pretty serious tussle. So this was one good example of northerners getting involved. Violence also took place in the house of representatives just as it would with sumner, it would happen between several members of congress. One of the most famous examples of this is republican out of pennsylvania and warren out of south carolina. Who became angry with one another on the floor of the house. And became so angry that it produced a fistfight of nearly 30 people. They had been fighting for some when an illinois representative by the name of wash burn took a swing at the fellow by the name of william bark dale. A democrat from mississippi. He aimed a bit too high and williams wig went flying off his head. Nobody in the house knew he wore a wig this was amusing. The house starts laughing uncontrollably and the row is over. So what does this tell us . A pretty common thing in washington. There is a lot of violence, but it is part of the regular experience. It happens and then it is over. And this is the context in washington in which the caning of Charles Sumner. Happened. Its not a situation where washington politicians then become so angry with one another they cant speak to each other. Theyre over it. About three days. Not true elsewhere in the country but in washington. The experience of washington politicians with the sumnerbrooks scandal helps us to understand the second aspect of the washington fraternity. That is that politician could be isolated from what was going on back home. Although sumner and brooks were from the south and north respectively. The difference between the two places was not as stark in washington itself. When senators and congressmen came to washington, it was almost impossible to avoid becoming friendly with people from other sections. The Washington Community operated in such a way that politicians were forced in to a regular series of party, balls, and dinners overwhelmingly crosssectional. Both men and women, the few women that came to washington, were required to participate in the system of washington socializing as part of the etiquette of the day. If you were, for example, a member of the house of representatives, it was your duty to call on members of the senate, cabinet member members, justice of the supreme court, and the p. You had to call on each of them. They had to call back on you. The result of this was you had to get to know people. You had to have the opportunity to get to know people from all parts of the country. Men were required to show up to state dinners. As they show a support for an administration. Many would spend evenings dining together, particularly as local socialite william cork rans house in washington where they necessarily encountered men from all sections of the country. The living arrangement of washington further highlighted this. Hotels were never divided up between northerners and southerners. Congressmen often lived next door to men from another section. And boarding house were also overwhelmingly crosssectional during this period which meant that men couldnt afford live in a hotel would live with other men from other sections who couldnt afford to live in a hoaghts. The result of the crosssectional interaction was a friendship. These friendships didnt necessarily make men less committed to their home state or section. But it did cloud their ability to fully understand the anger that was coming out of the south and the north in this time. Just to give you couple of examples then ill let you ask some questions. Lincoln and the future Vice President of the confederacy Alexander Stevens became good frensdz while working in washington. They enjoyed each Others Company and lincoln didnt know much of the south other than what he learned while working in washington with southerners who were willing to comprise and talk with him. Who is going to become the future secretary of state in the lincoln administration. Sue ward was even rumored to have nurse Jefferson Davis back to health during one of the fit of illness. These friendships and the washington experience help explain why davis and others were so surprised by this speed in which succession took hold and the sadness in which they met at the end of the union. Or at least what they expected to be the end of the union. There was a great scene at the end of this. Jefferson davis saying goodbye to his fellow congressmen in january 1861. Folding up his things. Walking out of the capitol weeping the entire way. Its not the picture we think of Jefferson Davis. Even he understand it was a serious moment and a moment he was not necessarily expecting. So i want to leave you with tonight is the idea that washington during this period, was not the typically divisive and violent place that we think of when we think of the coming of the civil war inspect many ways it was the exception. It was the kind of place where you could escape some of that divisiveness. And as a result of that, we cannot think about these people as causing the civil war or being em blackmailedmatic how the civil war came. Thank you. [applause] [applause] i would love to take some questions. They told me you need to use the microphone. If anyone would like to use the microphone and ask a question, i would be happy to answer it. All right. Brave soul [laughter] i have to confess it was off topic because it was kind the logical question. Im sure its on the mind. How did we get to the state were in now, really i think, rather than answering the political explanations for that, maybe a little of the history of when did the change, it seems like as late to the 60s there have plenty of social acting going on. Im not sure statistically whether anybody really knows now how much cross, you know, cross partisan socializing goes on. Im sure some of it does, but certainly by all accounts its a different world here in now. Sorry. Tell us what you know about this. The 19th century was sircht from the 20th century and the 21st century in term of the kinds of experiences. Of course the fact its men in this period makes it unique. I would say that one of the things that is key about the politicians in the mid 19th century is that they live in washington far long time together. They spend eight or nine months in washington at the time where they dont go home if you were from texas in you this period you wouldnt go home. It was hard to get there. Being forced in to the situation where youre living together and interacting in this way, probably had a big impact on the politicians in 19th century. We have a bigger government now in term of the people who work in washington. You could know oil of the people who lived in washington at this time. Because it was really focused on the politics. It was the place where you did politics and almost nothing else. So as a result of that, there is a focus on what is going on in a social relationship until 19th century. Now washington is huge and we have all kinds of thing. As a result its harder to get to know politicians to the same degree. Im not sure when it broke down. Or if it broke down. I guess we dont really know what is going on behind closed doors. But essential it looks different from how it did in the 19th century. Unfortunately i missed most of your presentation but when i came in. Im very serious about comparing where we are today to ancient civilization. I dont think were still very civilized. We are supposed to be a civilized country. [laughter] okay. We live with backwood mentality for many, many things and many areas. I just came back from the simple i spent almost a month in turkey, and i dont think we have gone very far. This is my question to you, do you think were a civilized country in the United States of america . [laughter] i dont know. I guess it depends what you think civilized is. Certainly we wouldnt describe the 19th century politicians as civilizes. They were trash talking and drunk and all kinds of violent at that time. So, you know, thats part of the problem i think we have changed a lot the way we view sort of our daytoday experience in the 21st century people dont hit each other over the head with a cane if theyre mad about something. Theyll go to jail; right. Not true in the 19th seize prip our perceptions of these things have changed. Which also is why i think its been hard for us to understand the violent context of washington in the 19th century. Because we sort of think well, if it is violent it must will have been very angry as well. It was not so much in that direction. I would like to ive read your book and ive also done research in the period. If you could talk about the differences, perhaps, in the people in the status if you were a calvert, and you were in the house of representatives but your family was nearby or Justice Campbell and your family was here. Now your status and your responsibility was different because you had family and you also had a house. Yes. And you had people over a lot. Could you talk a bit about the difference of the influence and the what goes along with it when you have your family here and when youre just the guys down at the mess. Excellent question. One of the things about being a visible politician in the 19th century with family or with just with your wife is you had more requirements to get involved with washingtons society. Your wife also had to participate in this complicated calling system. Only to a greater extend, even. As a result of that, you were going to be more visible if you had a house then you were going to host parties and dinners. And generally people who hosted parties and dinners invite people from both sections. Generally they would focus more on one party. Rather than the other. If you were a democrat you were more likely to invite democrats. But not true of everyone who lived in washington. Im mentioned william cork ran. Hef a famous socialite. A banker. Someone who contributed a lot to washington. Im sure youre familiar with the gallery. He was one of the most committed to a crosssectional Washington Community. In part because he knew his livelihood depended on it. So long as he was able to help keep the country together, he could make some money, have his friend, be on good terms with people from both sides of the country. And he tried to facilitate that kind of crosssectional interaction which is why he invited people from both section of the country to the house. You never passed up a dinner there. This way remember and a book about Jefferson Davis was actually instrumental and how interesting this was is a paradox at the time that the country appears to be falling apart. It is a testament to the strength of the union that is being driven by southern revolt. So this is one of the small things in relation to that. What does this tell us about the coming of the civil war if anything. Are they responsible . And how does that work . Well, certainly, although probably some of those contributed to some of the anger. But they couldnt prevent it. It was more of a Grassroots Movement by people who were rejecting the political system. Particularly rejecting the political system that Jefferson Davis had been a part of you that we have to get rid of these washington insiders. The same thing in the 19th century. Washington insiders are the worst thing ever to happen to our country. And so i would say that they didnt so much dropped the ball as they were oblivious to the ball. They didnt know what they were doing when it came to that. Especially to create a compromise before the civil war came. On Jefferson Davis is a great example of of the Washington Community and he is very much a career politician and he has all kinds of friends from all kinds of places. And he was very much interested in building on that for the future. There are not that many people in the 19th century were going to be around forever in washington. Jefferson davis was planning on it. So this is really an important moment for him in the sense that it is the most part of everything that he believes in. So this explains a little bit of how he can make the transition to the confederacy because of his political system that has died. But it is really sad for him. My question is what role do you think that they have played where there are no trials . Is that continue after the war . It does continue after the war and it continues during the war, which is really something. But i think it does continue and there is a willingness among politicians that existed before the war to reconcile because people are willing to see this and we knew each other back then. But it brings together a new number of politicians who dont know about this washington code and i think that is where it exists. There are some examples of people who are around and willing. Especially th