Control, terrorism, and the rise of isis. Congress, a year in review, on cspan december 31, 8 00 p. M. Eastern time. Author stephen hess talks about americas political dynasties at the New Hampshire institute of politics, outlining the criteria for a dynasty and some lesserknown families who dominated u. S. Congress. This program will last about 50 minutes. You, tom. Thank that was an overwhelming introduction. You told me things i had forgotten about, myself. You reminded me of my favorite cartoon of dwight eisenhower, mys back in the White Housemy boss back in the white house, at the lectern like this. The book i am talking about has a strange history, and unusual history. An unusual it started in 1957 in frank for furt,ny frank for it germany. I was in the army, and one night, i went to the library for a book for light entertainment. Instead, i saw a massive document. It and it was seven pounds. It was the biographical directory of the american congress, a listing of everyone who had ever served in Congress Since 1774. I was a Political Science major in college when i was drafted. I looked through it. I was amazed, there were names that just kept repeating. Byard, stockton, tucker. I had a good education, i knew about people like franklin and adamses andd the the father and son john and john q. Harrisons. The who were these wash birds and washburgs and tuckers . By the time i left the army in 1958, i had made 300 genealogies. Presley,laced by elvis not person, but unit to unit. I like to say i was replaced by elvis presley, the best story i have of the year. A strange thing happened to me, which was unexpected. I left the army on Labor Day Weekend as a private. Over week later, i was the number two speechwriter for 25. Ident eisenhower at got there,me how i and my answer is always, be very nice to your professor. My professor brought me into the white house as a speechwriter with him. 1964 that i had made enough money to sit down and spend two and a half years researching this book. I thought it was a phenomenon that was worth telling americans about, because there was not anything like this in the school system, and we have these families. It seemed to us, the constitution said something about no letter of nobility or title of nobility but we were picking certain noble families among ourselves. I started to write the book. 1966. E out in how may people were alive in 1966 . Some of you might remember it. 1966, well, in 1960, another family hit the limelight, the kennedys. People were interested in dynasties. I was able to sell this book 50 years ago. It was meant to be storytelling of these. They were fascinating stories of these families. Me thatruary, it struck it was 50 years and since i had written the book. I was in pretty good shape. How many people get an opportunity to rewrite a book 50 years later . Really hadut that i to rewrite the book. So many things had changed for one reason or another that you could not give the same book out again. What couldve changed with the adams family . I will see you and adam story. Adams story. This was not in the original book, because there has been so Much Research in the last 50 years. This is not just been catching up on these families since 1966, but also what historians have been studying about them for 50 years. This is a little adams story. , if i can find it, the most remarkable person, abigail. John had gone off in the france, and he left her with the family, the farm, with high taxes to pay for labor, a shortage of because boys had gone off to battle, and she had a farm to run. She reorganized the farm and turned it into a tenant farm situation and made a success of the farm. She did Something Else that most people, many people do not know that she actually did. , she went intoe trade. France senthn in packets of goods such as , which shefs arranged to sell with a merchant. Favorite of this small is best system. Explained this was buying at high real tale re bel prices when she would better with wholesale orders. If one in three arrives, i should be a gainer. Figure in could consumer tastes and demands of market. At one point, lenin was in great demand. 10 weeks later it was well supplied. So, of course, john never worked outside government for the rest of his life. She had made the family solvent for the rest of their careers. It was a wonderful thing, i thought, that American History is full of fascinating stories. One of the reasons, i had to rewrite, was that historians were busy working in these 50 and 60 years as well. Isther thing that happened that things seemed to change our minds. We perceive things differently in the course of 50 years. The kennedy family, i started to write the chapter in 1964, a year after the assassination of president kennedy. The chapter i wrote sounded like myth. T, on thisa i was scraping it down to what we see now as proper perspective. Another example, which i had not realized in the rewrite, was the roosevelt family, the children of franklin and eleanor. There were five. One of them did not appear as much, the other one was a conservative banker in new york. The three eldest sons and the daughter were often in the news. I wrote about them and gave them an ok rating, but i did not feel a position to look down at their children. 50 years later, it is discovered they were married 19 times and divorced 14 times, that Elliott Roosevelt had been investigated 8 times by congressional investigative committees, friendly roosevelt junior was ain roosevelt junior lobbyist freda mccann dictator dictator. Ominican it could not have possibly given the same assessment to the roosevelts children 50 years later. To make the ending of the roosevelt chapter. The children of Franklin Delano roosevelt chose to live in the long shadow cast by their parents. They viewed life as an unfortunate paradox. If they succeeded, it was because of parentage. If they failed, it was their own fault. They had good luck and bad luck like anyone else. Some of their problems went back to their parents, over which they had no control. Others came from being poor little rich kids. ,hey exploited their name although they had soiled themselves. They left it to their children, separated by divorces, to cut umbilical court cord. More time to study what had happened to the next the hyde parkboth branch and Teddy Roosevelt. I found that they left politics, certainly elective politics, and had useful lives as professors, writers, social workers. I dont know how to rate this. Know how much depended on the mothers who had been left to raise the children. Hadll cases, the sons had headline divorces. The third thing that i had to consider, obviously, is what had happened to these families in 50 years. By far, one of my favorite. Amilies, the tafts years ago, i had a radio show asked who was my favorite president. I said William Howard taft. Disappointed, he wanted to build a show around roosevelt or washington or lincoln. I dont think taft was necessarily a very good president , but he was my favorite. He was so nice. There were such love and his family. , love withis parents his brother, love with his children. My answer to who was my favorite president. That ins lived up to their lives. In fact, each chapter starts with a little quote from someone or other. Or another. The taft quote is from alphonso taft, a founding father of this family. Taft has ever neglected a public duty for the sake of , and song public desire it went to the tafts that bob governor and became involved in the most odd scandal, coingate, because he knew somebody who was a dealer in coins. The guy turned out to be a scam artist. He was indicted and convicted of the minor offense for that. I have to conclude the chapter. This was an unfortunate conclusion to the record of a great dynasty that have been deeply committed to Public Service without the flamboyance of the roosevelts or the sustaining wealth of the kennedys. They had been a model of a on hero could leader, steady and dedicated. So it ended with an unfortunate incident. There were incidents. Reallyf the book is stories. Families invorite this regard, in terms of storytelling, are the breckenridge is of kentucky breckenridges of kentucky. They were passionate in the civil war, absolutely down the middle, half with the south, half with the north. Therewere fears battles battlesrcierce within the family. John c breckenridge was Vice President of the United States and resigned to fight with the confederacy. Of the war, hes became a confederate secretary of war. Read a little, if i happened to of what john breckenridge. Remember, the war is over, the confederate cabinet is fleeing. The members are in flight from richmond, for the secretary of the war, the beginning of the twomonth adventure that reads like viking romance. By taking the southern underground, the party successfully eluded federal troops in virginia and the carolinas. In charleston, news reached them of the assassination of lincoln. They saw this as a difficulty for the south. President davis was taken. Cliftons below macon, was also captured. President davis dismissed his 45 man guard. Leave one of these young men to encounter one hazard more for my sake, he sa id. The fleeing breckenridge crossed into florida with his aid,e, colonel james wilson, was joined by two others, and the party enlistedeven with men. In the everglades, it struck him that if a man had his arm to tide and his face exposed, he would be killed by insects in nights. They lived on the bags of green eggs ofin the sand green turtles in the sand. On june 6, the hungry confederates met a party of several indians and were given a thick pancake. They also scrounged a few bits , and at the sight of they took over a sloop at gunpoint. They left for cuba, and the waves at open sea were 20 feet high. Feet and legs became blistered and swollen from heat and saltwater. 1865, former president of the United States arrived east of havana. Amazinging story. An story. Then, you find out what happened to him as he left for europe and the triumphantly returned to the eye of states later. He was a popular man, who ultimately practiced law in kentucky. There are those sorts of stories , which i truly got attached to. Say, the first audition 50 years ago, i was trying to tell about these people. Edition, now that we thatdynasties in a way people are wondering, are they good for democracy, we have two dynasties in conflict, i have a different reason to tell the stories of these men. there willis always be dynasties. They will not always be the same ones. Dynasties are born and dynasties die. The reason they die are often more interesting than the reason they are born. They are born because people are ambitious, energetic, egotistical, patriotic, ideological. Why do they die when others are born . Damss, it is very interesting why they die. Die so that others can practice poetry, said john adams. By regeneration after john , they and Charles Francis were out of politics and into writing in history. That really is not the reason. Sometimes, you run out of children. Brooks and henry did not have children. Many could have carried on. That is a reason you see in some families. They had this type of personality, they were very intellectual, it was difficult. Politicians of the popular type. They really came out of phase, they could not change their personality. They came out of character with what people wanted or expected in politicians. They would greet you and say, hello, and that was not the damss. They were rejected by the populists. The livingstons work from upstate new york were from upstate new york. The livingstons rejected the people. They were not going to bow down to the voter. So, they stopped. They married each other, moved moved from, entreprenuerial income to investment. It was sort of an american shintoism. Problemkenridges was that they were from kentucky. After the civil war, there was not as much opportunity. Of these dynasties were based on a single state. When they lose the state, they lose power. Otherid Amazing Things in capacities, but never built a political dynasty again. About half of them with the tafts of ohio or the muhlenbergs of pennsylvania. They never left new jersey. He is still there. Greatgrandson great, great, greatgrandson, he is still there. More often than not, it is because the ambitions and numbers are greater than the state can carry. There are the kennedys of connecticut, rhode island, kennedys, there was not enough room in massachusetts for the candidates. I said there is another reason that some leave. Occasionally they are just restless. Beenair sends it was had harrisons which were in great virginia family kept going west and were elected in indiana and illinois. Wyoming. One was from so again, personalities are different in different cases. That we are going to have dynasties, we are going to live with dynasties, have to assessmentffect our bad. Ether they are good or in my opinion, because i study many dynasties we have they have been above average, we have not collectively lost much. We have gained. Money if yout of are betting. But remember of course, these families like all families, families are so complex. Everyone of them had problems within the family. The adams, abigail and john had a son who is president , but two sons who were alcoholics. John quincy adams had a son who is a great diplomat and in other son who committed suicide. So with all of these families, along with great men and women, there are there is alcohol, drug abuse, sex, financial scandals and so forth. It is a complicated set to reach an ultimate conclusion. End with these words, from the last two decades of the 20th century into the next decade, the 21st, when the Political Landscape of the United States appears dominant by two families, there are some who are embarrassed or made uncomfortable by what they perceive as an antidemocratic slide toward government by legacy. Or perhaps some do not like one or two of the contenders and blame the twoparty system. What is fascinating about the bushs and clintons in terms of background and style and personality, is that they have nothing in common except the burning desire to be elected president of the United States. The irony is that while the clintons are not the dynasty, it and husband,wife they are not a dynasty but would like to be one. Of the bush and the bushs are a dynasty but denied that they are one. So one thing about this study is patience. A democracy means that any citizen can try to start his our own his or her own dynasty. And they do. People who try are ambitious and energetic, some have advantages, life is unfair. Some have collectively been above average. At the end result is that americas political dynasties, rather than representing virginity, it is actually part of a flux, the rise and fall of a constantly changing scene. That is how i conclude my book and i think i am on time. Where is my timekeeper . That means we have time for comments and questions and anything else. About the said a bit course because until 1920, we were talking about only men who are the elected ones, women or otherwise. At the women in this book are clear,mazing and it is it is harder and harder to find records of the women. The men did the running for office and for congress and is so forth. At the women are there any most unusual way. I am proud that i could find this. Senior bob taft, the republican, was elected in an upset victory from massachusetts in 1938 and it turned out his wife was a far greater campaigner than he was and the headline of one cleveland paper on that november morning was, bob and martha elected to senate. So i would like to thank i did think i did as well as i could with the wives. Clearly what we see now is because of the apartment of women and empowerment of women in politics, the odds of dynasties increase, double the numbers. I think we will see more. Take the case of becoming a dynasty, one step is to climb a ladder. You get elected to the city, the state, then the federal level and so forth. Either way, if you can jump a queue, sometimes if you are in , itrtainer or an athlete happens as well. But generally it is a process of moving up the chain. Take a politician from little italy in baltimore, stella Sondra Thomas delesandro who went up the chain, his son became a major and his daughter is in the house of representatives. So you start to see this breakthrough in the chain as it moves up. At any rate, i had fun writing the book and i hope you will take a chance to read it and have fun reading it. Now i am certainly open to any questions or comments. Yes . Quincy, i was always disappointed that neither of the adams got elected a second time. Listening to you, i was thinking about how in those days, you have to, you know they were not out making friends. You had the work before play. But then i thought about the kennedys, they must have learned from the adamsbecause it was just the opposite. And when you think about dynasty, you think about money. Didnt have any money. The clintons, they do now, but they didnt have any money. And you think about the kennedys bushs, there is some financial backing there. Stephen that is a point i should have mentioned. The of them are wealthy by end, but not necessarily at the beginning. , andain avenue for money it was true for the adams by the third generation, it had the advantage of marriage and it saved the adams. And in fact, some of the children by the next generation back int it held them some ways. Suddenly they were rich and they wanted anxiously to be the same way that they were before and it had an effect. It is true of them. It was true of the freeman horizons a religious family, they came here because the reformed churches sent to them. And they were two families that did not come because of politics , but because of religion. Ultimately the mirror and birds hremburgs, pennsylvania dutch, there are probably a third of the pennsylvania population and that was a voting block for the dutch. So they moved into politics through religion. But that religious family lasted through the generations 3 generations, and one of the married valentine. Have you ever had a valentine ale . One of the married proctor, proctor and gamble. Generation after generation, they married very rich people. And it certainly helped their political careers nicely. I should have mentioned that. One of the ways they did so well. It is funny, these families as you look at them, some of them are very harmonious, got a long. Of the taft the taft family, a brother, finances whole brothersis whole career to the president of the United States. ,ut others, the washburns where there is actually a andressman from maine, originally from illinois, minnesota and wisconsin. Four different states producing for brothers who are in congress. And when they were in congress they got along, theres a special block but in the book, one of them gets in a fight, i forget was one. And his brother comes to his rescue and grabs the hair of his opponent and it is a wake and comes off wig and comes off in his hand and it was really very funny. , obviously nobody was going to step ahead of another long. This was in louisiana where there were two longs ready to dump each other for congress. So there are all kinds of interpersonal relations that come out of this. I find them very interesting. Any comments . Will you speak to the New Hampshire side . Stephen overwhelmed with dynasties here. I do not talk about them because i am from washington, but would anybody like to tell me how these folks have been here from generation from generation . Explainst certainly this sort of thing i am sitting studying, if any but it would like to talk about them, the New Hampshire dynasties . Names who havee passed by the washington scene. Playerse been important in obviously the state, but governors and senators and members of congress, in washington as well. As reluctantly as recently as the senator who chose not to be the speaker of congress. Yes, sir . Claims would you say to that the u. S. Is in our turkey oligarchy versus a democracy . Stephen in anynot in oligarchy way. I have written a book about dynasties as if they are important in the United States. But there have been 11,00012,000 people in the , thed States Congress dynasties i am talking about are about 6 . We are really talking about a small number of interesting people. Is not near in oligarchy oligarchy, i think. Do you consider the romneys as a dynasty, or think they will become a dynasty . Stephen there are two. I know because i was in the nixonadministration administration and i remember when george was a governor. And of course you all know mitt. Advantage that is almost necessary in a dynasty, they have lots of children. You look through the book and you find families with 17 children, 13 children and so forth. The clintons are at a disadvantage with only one child and now one grandchild. So they are against that in that regard. But certainly the romneys have enough young and attractive people who show themselves campaigning for their father that you do here hear comments from time to time about how they move it forward, out west if not in new england. My hunch is we have not seen the last of the romneys, by any means. I cannot predict any more than that. Ok. There is a hand back there. Thank you. Is there anything in particular about politics that make dynasties more powerful or more likely to form, rather than butchers or bakers . Stephen i think it is a general rule of thought that if your father is a that you areer, more likely to become a bigger baker. So Public Service is a pretty heavy brew. If you are sitting at dinner and you are john and abigail and you are talking about their conversation with thomas jefferson, wow, that resonates. Very often when they run for office their children join the had, certainly the kennedys a many people involved in that. So, i guess all of those things ofp along the possibilities generations. Obviously when you are talking about money, it is easy to pass money along. Many families do in one way or in another. And they write books about what happened in those families and where the problems are. Clearly there are some occupations that depend on certain skills. Ofletes, baseball is full these. T means a step up the ladder and in politics if you have a wellknown name, a member of congress lets say, the odds are if your son or daughter wants to get into politics, that person will get a seat on the city council. And this he might be a little , heer, like Teddy Roosevelt had two sons that went to the house of representatives and when they ran for higher office, both of them were defeated. So my rule of thumb is you get one step up the ladder and then you are on your own. I tend to think that is probably fair. But if you are by the way, i think it is the same thing as in professional baseball. Harder,ors have to work but they got there because their father was a pretty good player. So some parallels in that i think. And the jerryomo , statewideis dad dynasties. Stephen yes we have them from east to west. My book starts with the proposition of congress, the federal government, how it sets a precedent. But when i pick a family, i do not stop there so i get into the state. But if you start the other way haved with the state, you 10 of them. State. 0, 1 for each no question. You said you got out of the service in 1957 and were replaced by all this. I was always my line, i got out in 1957 and said i was replaced by elvis. [laughter] stephen kinship, i a closer was actually in his unit, well his unit replaced my unit. I never knew him. I am sure he had a lot different job than i had. [laughter] stephen [indiscernible] [laughter] stephen is that a hand . No. Anybody else . Sure. Back to the oligarchy question. Ligarchs themselves, families that have a percentage of the economy, and it is small and large reflectively, may not choose to run for office in themselves but create others to run things and in fact the johnson dynasty, should it become one, is to generations now, is far more important than the kennedy dynasty in new england. Stephen you are way ahead of me because you jumped from having office to having influence on office. It is tricky business. Thegreat era of reconstruction, the period of morgan and harriman and all of era,igmoney men of that none of them are in this book. Why . Why should he run for office if he can buy a politician . Be more subtle now, but it was less so in the 1 8802. S. They are interesting because it was the sons that ran for office. Then you had rockefeller. T was his grandson this is interesting because it was the same thing. John d rockefellers son married the daughter of aldrich of rhode island, the greatest politician in the United States. So the great moneymaker and to the greatest politician and in ldricharriage produced a rockefeller, Vice President of the United States. This is constantly changing. Not is partly it may service these people. This is the world they live in and worked in. ,ou take a family, howard baker wonderful senator and so forth. Is father was a congressman when his father died, his mother took the seat, which is often the case, widow succession. Somebody wrote a book that was called, over his dead body. So he had a mother and father in into theand he married family of the leader of the party and they had children. One child ran for office and did not make it. And she died and he married griffith. A sender from kansas senator from kansas, his father whose father ran for president. Look at that collection of people, not because they were seeking power, it was just how they lived. It was you you went to dinner with who you went to dinner with, who they enjoyed. I see that constantly in these dynasties, this sort of intermarriage. So that is the best i can do for you. By the way, these are nice questions. I hope i am doing justice to them. [applause] [applause] you are watching American History tv, 48 hours of programming every weekend on cspan3. Follow us on twitter for information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest news. Each week, American History tvs reel america brings you films that provide context for Public Affairs issues. Our guest today on meet the press is the author of the negro family. Was warmlyat first praised and has recently been criticized. He has a degree in Political Science. Public drafter of the policy program and was just brought on new york citys task force. I have some questions for daniel moynihan. Quotation, a harvard psychologist who criticizes your report. Tolerate, negroes legitimacy and Everything Else that is supposed to follow. How do you answer . I am not responsible for the fact he cannot read. I went at length that there is a lot of evidence that the negro family is more stern, more rigid than most. The evidence is clear, negro families live like any other american and when they are forced into the ghetto, they have no better protection. I will ask a specific question, the New York Times quotes you as saying that 44 of children in harlem are how do you know that . Daniel statistics. As havingcribed undergone a massive deterioration of the fabric of society and right under our noses that happened. Last 15appened in the years and we have been sitting around and thinking things are Getting Better and they have not for the children. I for one, if you think people can face the civil rights andment, in the way of mobs disapproval of society, i think i am willing to face a few white liberals from boston who think i should not write on the subject because it is impolite. You say, the quality of opportunity almost ensures inequality of results. Are you proposing special treatment on the hiring of negroes . Daniel i believe this country owes negroes back wages, yes. Do you believe the government should give negroes treatment special treatment . Man in you cannot keep a chains for centuries and take the chains off and just tell them to run. You have to be able to help ete with resources and i believe we should make a special effort. Cspan takes you on the road to the white house. This year, our student documentary contest asked students to tell us what issues they want to hear from president ial candidates. Follow the road to the white house coverage and get details on our contest at cspan. Org. Historian and author William Davis talks about the different upbringings of ulysses s. Grant and robert e. Lee. s argues that grant optimistic view was brought about by the freedom and responsibility he was given by his father. In contrast, he suggests that lee remained isolated from peers because of his mothers firm hand and high expectations. This is one hour and 15 minutes. Good evening and welcome. My name is frank williams. I am chair of the lincoln forum. It is my pleasure to introduce our friend, my friend, William Davis
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.