parks is the name of the book. >> our topic for today is henry clay and america's greatest statesman. mr. unger is a veteran journalist broadcaster, educator and historian, former distinguished visiting fellow at the george washington. he is the author of 25 books including three histories of early america and ten biographies of america's founding fathers. among them george washington, lafayette, patrick henry and james monro. he's appeared on the history channel and a c-span book tv spoke at mount vernon, yorktown and many other historic sites. a graduate of the yale university with a masters university with a masters of arts from california state university. spent many years as an analyst for the new york world tribune in the service and the canadian broadcasting corporation. mr. president and john marshall reveal how george washington and john marshall constructed the executive and judicial branches of the american government. the greatest statesman tells how a fearless young kentucky warrior brought order to and on the congress and prevented the breakup of the nation and predated the congress of the united states. please join me in welcoming charles under of the national archives. [applause] >> thank you ladies and gentlemen. it's a privilege to be here at the national archives today. especially as the government seems to be any kind of state of flux right now. if i have to choose one word that summarized the basis for the nation's survival over more than 200 years, it would not be patriotism although that's certainly contributed. and it wouldn't be natural resources because that's two words. but they also contribute. land, ingenuity, courage all contributed to the nation's growth and survival. but that's not the one single factor that has held us all together for all these years. this nation was founded and built on compromise. the declaration of independence was a compromise. have the people that signed it they wanted to stay british. the constitution was a conference between slave states and free states committed states into little states, rural states and urban states. and once the national government assumed power its survival for the next 60 years hinged on five major compromises worked out by one man that i called america's greatest statesman henry clay of kentucky. americans in his day called him the great compromise or because his compromises saved the nation from disintegration during the decades that led up to the civil war. a little more than two centuries ago, henry clay walked into the house of representatives and found almost every member carried a pistol in his pocket. scavenger just invented this one-shot pistol everybody could carry in their pockets and just about everybody in the house of representatives did. members thought on the floor punching each other, wrestling like schoolboys and then paste it outside and try to duel in to shoot each other. one member brought a pair of vicious hunting dogs to protect himself and intimidate opponents. although he was the youngest representative every elected speaker and the only person ever elected to that post, he picked up the gavel and pounded them into order and turned the house of representatives into what the framers intended when they wrote the constitution. in doing so he became the greatest speaker in american history. he laid down the rules of conduct for the house and for every speaker that followed. and i can sum up all of those rules without one word, compromise. i was stunned a few weeks ago to read in the nature dalia newspaper and editorial that praised the current speaker john boehner for perfecting the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable. that's not the job of the speaker. she's not there to be disagreeable or to disagree. the art of the great speaker in american history, the art of henry clay is that of compromising, not disagreeing. and the great speakers that followed modeled themselves out to be after clay the art of economizing. now most americans don't realize that the speaker in the house of of the house of representatives is the second most powerful elected federal official in the land after the president, and like the president, he is the only other official in the federal government elected by all americans in the entire nation by we the people. sometimes it seems neither the president nor the speaker listens to any of us. of a people in the size of geometry and geography make universal solutions impossible we all disagree and each of us has any legal rights to do so and to pursue our selfish interests with benefits to ourselves and to remain united as a nation each of us as our elected representatives in congress must compromise and make personal and collective sacrifices and that's what the speaker of job is. in the 225 years since the first congress convened, the members of every house of representatives has elected one member to do that job to reconcile the conflicting interest and they call him but he elected of the elected representatives of we the people elected by the majority party in the house of representatives, that isn't true. he is nominated by the majority party. and he belongs to the party when he's nominated. but he is nominated. but the entire membership of the house must elect him. the members of all people must elect the speaker. some people still call him the elected of the elect. second only to the president himself he commands the legislative. the president controls the executive process, put the law into effect in enforces the law. the speaker of the house is a man that controls the legislative process and names the chairs of all the committees and influences the appointment of the membership of the committee through these committees he controls whether and when the bill can come to the floor for a vote. he selects which members can speak and for how long. who can speak for the bill and against the bill. in the early 18 hundreds, one elderly congressman spoke beyond his allotted time in the house. >> yes sir. but using results to resolve to continue speaking until the audience arrived. that's why henry clay is on the cover of my new book. americans understand the role and the power of speaking and we defined that role as they became the greatest speaker in american history. sadly, the most recent speaker either didn't understand the role or refuse to accept it and put the interests of his own district and interests of his political party ahead of the nations interest which would be fine if he were an ordinary congressman. but he wasn't. once the house of representatives elected a speaker, that person is no longer committed to debate or vote in the house. he is there to engineer compromises that will bring a majority of congress. a majority of americans together in the interest of the nation. now, we are often a very difficult people to bring together which is why even 200 years since the first congress convened, the house has finally enacted 5% of all proposed legislation. 5%. 95% are rejected. some say that's dysfunctional. if the new law helps you and doesn't hurt me, i may be for it. but if it hurts me, i'm against it. so congress is not as functional congress simply reflects the views of people like you and me, the people the members represent, and that's what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution. they wanted to create a congress that would further the majority interest without damaging the minority interest and that means few new laws would ever get past. that's not dysfunction. that's democracy. if those things perfectly, get a dictator otherwise it wastes the system we have come a few laws would ever get past and that would mean huge sacrifices for some and benefits for others. the wall that gets passed with the huge compromise that would seldom satisfy anyone. james madison helped write the constitution and it is blamed and these are medicines words not the rich for the poor, not for the learned but the ignorant, not the heirs of the distinguished names or the humble sons of the securities, they are to be the great people of the united states and that's what we have in the house of representatives is person that is supposed to reconcile the conflicting use of the great body of people as the speaker of the house. as i said, henry clay was the greatest statesmen in american history and americans in his decor and the great compromise or. he was both speaker of the house and then became the equivalent of the senate majority leader later in his life and during those two periods of his life he saved the nation by the five fundamental compromises between the bitterly divided congressman from the proslavery south and north. it was the same compromise in 1820 and like his other compromisers they prevented the secession of the south and postpone the outbreak of the civil war for 40 years and by postponing the civil war he allowed the nation to mature and survive in the civil war eventually came and had it entered a union at this time actually threatened it would have given the slave states the majority for the very first time in the congress and the power to pass the wall perpetuating slavery in the united states, the entire united states indefinitely from the few northerners that weren't going to have that and jamestown which demanded the writer he wanted to ban the entry of any more and a man to take all the children age 25 the children born to slave already in missouri and in other words the poundage writer would have converted into the free state into given the free states the majority and the power in congress to emancipate all the slaves in the nation is now they were an outrage they exploded with anger and shouted if you persist the union will be dissolved and he shouted back in uproar if the dissolution of the union must take place let it be so. if the civil war must, i can only say let it come. only the speaker henry clay would remain calm almost from ear to ear. he was totally opposed to the dissolution and result but he knew the dissolution in 1820 would lead to the civil war. certainly not over slavery. abolitionism was in its infancy in 1920. john brown is only 20-years-old and just got married. the southern states had associated and few northerners would have cared. they would have said good riddance and certainly not risk to free in the south. the northerners have almost as many slaves as the southerners did. only new england had three slaves by 1820. new york would emancipate its slaves until 1827 and the mobs rioted against an ocean. all pennsylvania and new jersey had entered into the state trade and they blocked the emancipation as unconstitutional confiscation of private property without due process. so clay didn't have the civil war in 1820. what he did here is the break up his dream and that of munro at the time was to see this potentially huge american empire stretched from sea to shining sea from the grandest nation in the world had the south associated at the time it would have broken up the nation into two parts and possibly three parts because the central states that have succeeded as well and these three small vulnerable nations would be open to conquest by any of the ambitious world powers at the time, spain, france and britain. the american revolution would have gone on to the trash bin of history and would have been gone. so come as the debate raised, clay sought the opportunity for compromise and offered the chance to separate it from massachusetts and joined the union as a free state by making its admission with that of missouri and no strings attached he allowed the compromise the slave states to retain equal votes in the center and continue living in peace in the same union. the importance of the compromise didn't begin to become clear until more than a decade later when a new younger generation of northern abolitionists began to emerge and had been raised with how slaves and they taught them to detest slavery as sinful and abolitionist and as they grew in their voices intensified many called for the war in the northern emancipation. it's the compromise of 1833. originally tried to try a few southern states to the northern states with the closer trade relations. northerners had imposed high protective tariffs on goods coming in from the south that were made with slave labor and priced so low that they couldn't compete and the northern manufacturers reduced the goods by workers they couldn't compete with the slave labor so they thought it was a killing to the high tariff on 20% regardless of whether they came to be from the south or other countries like england with which they flooded the northern markets. the terrorists were so high they began to affect exports out of the south and southern congressmen began to threaten secession again and civil war until henry clay stepped in to calm everyone down. instead of forcing the north and south between the high terrace and no tariff the gradual approach suggested reducing a little bit each over a ten period and that would give each side partial protection for a long enough. a lifetime for them to adjust to the changes and keep trading with each other and stay in the union. the next compromise came in 1836 after texas rebelled and declared independence and applied for it to be annexed by the united states. but as with texas and missouri to texas statehood would have given the majority in congress and also might have provoked mexico to declare war so they have to work out another compromise, more complicated this time. any compromise had to maintain the senate parity between slave states and the priest will states to keep them all in the union and also to avoid war with mexico which claimed texas as its own and haven't recognized texas independence so the compromise immediately rejected the annexation of texas which qualified mexico and the northern abolitionists who wouldn't be part of the union. now he had to satisfy the southerners. he did so not by recognizing texas that by granting texas and leading it letting it be in the statehood. he opened up the borders and people would go back and forth just as they would in any other state line. it wasn't a free state. it was nothing. it had nothing to do with slavery but with preserving the union at the peaceful existence in the union and they were now able to push his dream into action. his dream was the most grandiose economic social scheme. he called it the american system they couldn't work with one that he didn't like. he worked with ten different presidents many of them political foes with feuding states across the nation to bring all of these entities and state officials together to make the u.s. the world's most prosperous nation .-full-stop his dream. under the leadership, they built a network of loads and railroads that linked every corner of midwestern states to the huge transportation network and until then everybody had to go on her stack so no one crossed state lines and he would say virginia commit new york, delaware. now suddenly vast numbers of people and businesses could move about the union freely and easily in established agricultural commercial, political and social connections that soon made the 20 states of the union one. it made the dissolution of the union unthinkable. thousands, tens of thousands moved west and returned regularly to visit families they left behind and vice versa. businesses and banks in different states, farmers, merchants shipped goods across the state lines and had important sources in states other than their own. if they were not about to let a handful of southern plantation owners destroy evidence and livelihoods. among other things, the compromise of 1850 expanded the number of the free states linked by the american system to 20 states with more than 20 million people. that's compared to only 5.5 million in the independence minded southern states. now in 1860 day went to preserve the union that henry clay spent his life creating. .. >> gave the debt load to fraternal strength and peace, brought peace to a distracted land. again, abraham lincoln talking. another little-known fact, most americans don't realize that abraham lincoln's in-laws were close friends of the clays in lexington, kentucky. lincoln's wife, mary todd, grew up almost next door to the clays. as the young lincoln wooed and then married mary todd, clay became lincoln's friend and mentor. and before he became president, lincoln served in congress where clay had made compromise the guiding principle. now, clay died before the war began, but when he died, lincoln gave a stirring eulogy looking to heaven and cocking his ear lincoln said, i recognize clay's voice speaking today as it ever spoke for the union, for the constitution, for the freedom of man. and when lincoln sent union forces to war, he explained why in words that might easily have been those of henry clay. my paramount object in this struggle is to save the union, president lincoln explained. it is not either to save or destroy slavery. if i could save the union without freeing any slave, i would do it. and if i could save it by freeing all the slaves, i would do it. and if i could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, i would also do that. what i do about slavery i do because i believe it helps to save this union. and what i don't do, what i forbear i forbear because i do not believe it would help to save the union. abraham lincoln listened to henry clay throughout his political life, as have all the great statesmen in american history. we must now pray, hope that congress will elect a speaker who will do the same and help save and preserve our union and bring us together as a people instead of dividing us. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] god bless you all and god bless america. [applause] thank you very much. i am open to questions, and i'll be signing books a little bit later on. yes, sir. >> it's interesting to hear you enunciate the principle that compromise is really the foundational value that underpins the constitution and that the founders saw this, because today the word "compromise" is actually brandished as a weapon against democrats or republicans who seek to compromise that they're not acting with the purity of purpose on behalf of narrow constituencies. what can the country do, what can citizens do to discourage this disturbing trend? >> well, those who oppose compromise do not believe in the american way. are enemies of this country and are borderline, on the board of treason. because that attitude, that small, tiny little selfish -- [inaudible] should dictate to the majority that's naziism, that's communism. that's not american democracy. that's not what this republic was built on. and a strong speaker should get these people under control. he's failed to do that. that's why we need a good speaker now who will unite us as a people and dismiss these extremists. and we've had presidents who have faced this. eisenhower faced it and dismissed them from his political party and from influence in his political party. roosevelt united us as a people. lincoln united us, members of the union at least, states of the union. so we've had great leaders in both executive and the legislative branch that truly believe in the values of this country and bring us together as a people. >> what would it take for a speaker to be able to assert that principle without being driven out? >> well, remember that speaker is elected by the entire house. he's nominated by his political party. the force of his personality is basically, i mean, no one should run for speaker unless they know they can unite people. i mean, what was it that general eisenhower would say we should do to bring people together, it was the force of his personality x. that's the kind of speaker -- and we've had great speakers. most americans don't know the names of our speakers because when they get elected, they're elected by a little, tiny group and a little constituency that no one's heard of. the president is elected directly by all of us. it's in the house that the speaker gains notoriety by organizing members and eventually building up a large enough constituency showing them how they can come together. engineering a compromise is an art. it's not something anyone can do. most people try to engineer a compromise, and all sides walk out, make enemies of everybody. and like clay was able to bring them all together, and that's the kind of man that should be running for speaker, a man whose object is to bring different sides together, not whose object is to further the interests of his community. he loses his status as a representative if he wants to be speaker. he has to be speaker of all the united states, not just for his little constituency. >> yeah, hi. you know, in history you've got men and times. you've got henry clay -- in history you've got men or women and the times in which he's in. so, you know, you can't divorce the two. clay had this idea of union, but he also had this thing of slavery which most people kind of felt maybe in some way there'd be a split. so my question is this: obviously, we're in a period now where compromise does seem -- kind of segway -- where compromise is really a bad word. it's almost like a four-letter word. so is there something specific about the time, in your thinking, is there something specific about the times today that makes compromise more difficult than in clay's time, or is it we just don't have a henry clay out there yet who rose above that? that's the first question. and then second question, if we believe, as you do, that compromise is important and if we believe -- as you seem to claim and some of us agree -- the people we've had right now in congress are not doing that, you want to show them somebody, you could show them henry clay, what other two speakers would you suggest that they study or could understand how compromise is reached if they really don't understand how? >> well, i'll just touch on the second question because there have been many, many speakers, but one of the most famous ones is sam rayburn with dwight eisenhower. rayburn, democrat who campaigned for adlai stevenson and yet worked very, very well with eisenhower. they both loved their country and worked for the interest of their country. i would answer the first question and, of course, can't prove it, but i'd say, no, it was more difficult then. the deep south, remember, was run by a handful, literally a handful of plantation owners. and the bitterness between the slave states and the free soil states was intense. and it touched every area of life, not just social life and religious life, it touched as i mentioned before, it touch toed commercial life because these barons in the south were swapping markets with cheap goods made by slave labor. and that enflamed commercial, financial interests of the north as well as the moral interests of the north. this was an impossible breach in the conduct of these two parts of the country. and as i say, clay never solved that problem, but he held the nation together by finding enough common ground to build this american system and truly unite the rest of the nation. civil war probably was inevitable because we were, we're talking about a bunch of oligarchs in the south. in any given state you could call, any given state you could call it a dictatorship. but certainly an old oligarchy. in south carolina john calhoun was a dictator effectively. at one point clay worked with calhoun, and calhoun's worst enemy, daniel webster of massachusetts. and the three of them came up with the compromise of 1833. so much so that the nation called these three men the great triumvirate. it didn't last long, but for a while it was remarkable that clay was able to bring these two men together. and, you know, clay's influence on kentuckians was rather remarkable because initially when the civil war did break out, remember, kentucky, slavery was legal. and clay himself had slaves. that was kentucky law. kentucky law banned emancipation of slaves. so you couldn't free your slaves if you wanted to. you'd be fined and possibly in prison. kentucky remained neutral. and tennessee -- [laughter] the jerks who ran tennessee decided to invade kentucky. that was a mistake. [laughter] kentucky was not going to have anybody invading their state, and they now joined the union and fought with the north in the civil war. if ohio had done it, they would have joined the south. but they were neutral and wanted to stay neutral. does that answer all your questions? i hope so. and thank you for your questions, by the way. yes, sir. >> has the house at any time considered electing a speaker from a non-member of the house? >> no. the rules don't permit that. he has to be elect of the elect. >> you say that the constitution doesn't forbid it, does it? >> sometimes the fight for the speakership goes on ballot after ballot after ballot to. but that's happened with the presidency also. the election of thomas jefferson went on for 33, 34, 35 ballots. >> but as i understand it, tell me if it's not correct, the speaker does not have to be a member of the house. >> no, he has to be a member of the house, yes. >> [inaudible] >> i'd like to say that i was under or that misunderstanding too, because during some of the news coverage when mr. boehner announced his resignation, some were reporting that you could. so thank you for setting the record straight on that. >> the names i've seen are all members of the house. >> okay. my question is, is it only the party with the majority that can nominate the speaker? >> i'm sorry? >> is it only the party that is in the majority that can nominate the speaker? >> well, they have the most votes. >> so it's just logical. >> and if they can come together, they usually nominate, they make the first nomination who has, who then has the most votes. and it's like a convention, like the democratic national convention or the republican national convention. the one with the most votes gets voted on by the entire convention first. sometimes you win, sometimes he's voted down. we saw mrs. clinton get voted down when president obama, mr. obama then -- >> right. >> -- had more convention delegates. >> well -- >> it's basically convention -- >> okay. >> -- with built-in split between two and sometimes three or four parties. >> all right. so you really have to win the nomination within your party. if you're in the majority party, you need to get enough votes for them. >> exactly. that's what representative mccarthy thought he had last week and now is running into opposition within his own party. it's going to be a tough fight because if any of the candidates are truly patriotic speakers, they are not going to become slaves to little minorities within their party. so they have to find a way to calm everybody down and really teach them that this is in the interest of your country. you'll hear yes to serve your constituents, to represent their views, but you're here to serve the country. yes, sir, do you have a question? >> yes. i wonder where i read in the constitution that you had to be a member of the house, but your comment earlier is the first i've heard that the speaker loses his right to cast a vote as a representative of his district. when and how did that come about? >> i'm awfully sorry, i just didn't -- >> much earlier you had said that once the speaker is elected, he no longer is allowed to cast a vote in the house. >> right. >> which would mean that he's deprived of his vote as a representative of his district and when and how did this come about? >> these are standard rules of order. the it's like the vice president -- it's like the vice president who is president of the senate, he cannot vote in the senate. he has no vote. and now in his case, he's not even an elected senator. >> exactly. >> but in the case of the speaker and in the case of all presidents, these are rules of order that predate our nation at the constitutional convention. george washington was elected president of the convention. with that he lost his vote, although he was a delegate from virginia, he was elected by virginians to come to attend the convention. he can no longer vote, and he can no longer take sides. the role of the president of any convention he presides, he does not participate. thank you. >> this is a role that supersedes the -- >> i'm sorry? >> is this rule of order something that supersedes the constitution which does not forbid him to vote? >> well, it has, it -- the constitution gives each of these branches of government certain leeway in determining their rules of how they're going to fulfill their obligations to the american people and to the nation. and one way to do it is to keep order, not to pull out aer derringer and shoot each other. you've got to get along somewhere, and you need someone to maintain order. because, remember, as i said, when henry clay went into the house of representatives for the first time, it was, it was bedlam. and clay himself participated in several duels and was nearly killed because he -- it was the only way of maintaining order at that time. until he was able to establish rules of conduct. yes, ma'am. >> could you explain why the senate doesn't have more -- why the speaker of the house has more power than any leader or the majority leader on the -- >> that's a very good question. the senate was originally a body to represent the states. the states, until 1917 i think, certainly in the first two decades of the 20th century, the two senators were appointed by the state legislature. they were not elected by the people. they were not part of the people. they represented state interests. so their whole purpose was different. and the compromise in the constitution, because state legislatures of course, for the most part, were controlled by the big financial interests of each state, this was to give the people representation. that's where they gave the house of representatives equal powers, even greater powers in certain areas than the senate. the senate was considered the equivalent of the house of lords, patrician, a body of patricians. and they were given powers over foreign treaties and foreign affairs that the house lacks. but the house was given power of spending our money. because they are our representatives. so they have their hands in our pockets, sorry to say that. [laughter] but that, the purpose of the senate was different from the purpose of the house, and that was one of the great compromises they made at the constitutional convention creating a bicameral legislature, one representing the people. because the constitution begins "we the people of the united states." and the other representing slightly more esoteric interests, foreign affairs, things that ordinary people would not understand or have any knowledge about. but even in the senate the constitutional convention had to compromise because there was a major, major fight over how many senators each state would have. originally, the constitutional convention, the three largest states in the union at that time were virginia, pennsylvania and massachusetts. and the con innocental congress -- continental congress that had preceded the constitution gave each state one vote so that all states were equal. now the big states said, huh-uh, no more of that. we have far more people than you guys do, and we want proportional representation. they got that in the house, but the senate said, no. if we give the big states more votes, give them proportional representation in the senate, three states will be able to dominate all the other states of the union ott -- union at that time, nine other states. those nine other states basically rebelled and threatened to leave the union unless they had equal representation. they did not want to be dominated. the big states said nine states with fewer people than us are going to tell us what the majority to do. so this went down to the wire until washington stepped in. and basically, he had a way of intimidating people the way ike did too. i guess all commanding generals have that part of their personality. but because he, as i say, he couldn't vote or express his views in the convention, but he could do so at the city tavern after the convention adjourned each day. and he made his views perfectly clear. you have to settle this, or i will settle it for you. so they compromised. washington, as i said, washington, lincoln, roosevelt, eisenhower, probably the four greatest compromisers in the presidency. you may think of others, and you'd probably be right. washington brought those, that convention to heel and forced them to compromise. i want to thank you very much for coming today, ladies and gentlemen. it's been an honor to be here and talk to you. [applause] >> don't forget be, book signing one level up in the bookstore. we will see you up there in just a few minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> a signature feature of booktv is our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. here's our schedule beginning this weekend. we'll be in massachusetts for the boston book festival. in the middle of the month, it's the louisiana book festival in baton rouge. and at the end of november, we're live for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. nd