Jackson was elected president in 1828. We recorded their remarks at the u. S. Capital Historical Society in 2018. I will go ahead and start stuff. Welcome. Welcome to our latest lunch time texture. Im steve im chief historian at the capitol Historical Society, welcome. I am really pleased today to introduce you if you dont already know to jeanne and david heidler. They have been speakers here before for their book on George Washington circle. Today we are really honored that we are one day in to the official existence of their latest book on Andrew Jackson. The rise of Andrew Jackson. It was officially released yesterday. So we are at the threshold of greatness here. The book will be available afterwards, they will be available to sign it for anyone interested. I went to point out that their previous book was washington circle, we are also selling discounted copies of that back there. I am told that the hardcover that we are selling is five cents more than amazons soft cover. So that sounds like a winwin. Anyways, i hope you will have some great questions. This is a hot topic. Some of you are familiar faces but some of you may have been drawn specifically because of Andrew Jackson who has been in the news lately. So lets hear about why. How he is a template for modern modern politics and you will be taking q a afterwards, so think of some great questions. I have a couple. With that i will ask you to help me welcome jeanne david jeanne and david. Got it working . Yes. Good. Hello everyone. Thank you check for the gracious introduction and the boost on the book that just came out yesterday. Can everyone hear me all right . All right . Good. I will try to keep up the volume here so that we do not have any problems with that. It is delightful to be back here again. Several years have passed. We see some familiar faces and we have met some new friends. Today, we would like to talk to you about the central aspect that drove the campaign for 1828 in the wake of the one for 1824, which was the charge of the corrupt bargain. To ask the question how corrupt was it . That is where we get into these business of smear or truth. Part of this is the natural aftermath of an election, which is always a time of mixed emotions and contrasting moods. You have the elation of the victors and the disappointments of the defeated. These balance each other which leads to a better perspective on the event and the future. It gives proportion, a sense of proportion. The first shock of defeat will subside and elation over victory becomes relief over having attained it. From this, you get and equilibrium if everything works right. Which is necessary for sound governance. In the best case the victor is never completely vindicated and the defeated is never completely demolished. A healthy political system preserves the adversarial role as a way to check, curb and discourage over waning power. At the same time, extremes of failure and success must be avoided because if they persist, there lies the path to irreconcilable differences. And to the heedless exercise of power. And to the reckless form of resistance. Fundamental to avoiding all of this is a general belief that good faith is operating as a given in the election and its aftermath. Imagine then the chaos that is likely to ensue if they defeated emerged from the election convinced that they have been cheated. That the process itself was manipulated in bad faith and that the result is illegitimate. That the beneficiaries of it are shallow extras at best but possibly evil at worst. Subverting the peoples will, destroying the democratic ideal for the venal gain of power. That would be bad enough. But imagine if the losers did not really believe this. But were willing to act as if they did. That they were intent upon convincing as many people as possible of the things they know to be lies are the truth. The damage of such an effort, even if unsuccessful, could be incalculable. If it is successful, it is certainly to be devastating. And it is that situation that can be broadly categorized as a smear. A smear is a deliberate fabrication at worst or at least a willful twisting of the truth to sullied the reputation of the target. Strictly speaking, the truth cannot be a smear. The purpose of it in politics is as a scheme to achieve advantage over in opponent outside of traditional means such as debate over issues or policies or contrasting differences which are presented either in person or through pertinent issues being exported in writing. Candidates and entities resort to these smears because they wish to distract from something. They wish to change the subject. It could be from their own personal failings or foils. In personal matters where they behave questionably or a past political stance this is where we are at the common popular. In short, distraction is the operative function of a smear. For a candidate with nearly unassailable credibility, it is an easy way to damage opponent. This is where it becomes especially dangerous. Credibility comes from popularity. The sterling deed, inspiring life story, a sense of a benefit caution with people that creates a bond for essentially ephemeral reasons. It is nonetheless and parts authority. The fallacy of arguing from authority is only matched by the ease of doing so. It is to say that you should believe me because of who i am. Discounting the need for evidence or even dismissing contradictory evidence as a relevant. Hello. At the heart of our story today is the constitutional role of the house of representatives in deciding a president ial election, such as the one in 1824, an election where no candidate received the majority in the Electoral College. This had only happened once before. The election of 1800 where Thomas Jefferson tied with his Vice President ial running mate, aaron burrow. It is somewhat odd that it had been hadnt happen more than one time before, because the primers of the constitution actually envisioned it happening pretty frequently. They thought that because they believed that favorite sons from the various states would run in each of the quad for neil elections and as a result there would be no majority in the Electoral College that with throw it into the house of representatives. They chose the house because it is considered the peoples house. The frequency of the elections of course make it more responsive to the will of the people. This was the mechanism and vision. If someone did receive a majority in the Electoral College originally, that person would pick up in the president. The person who came in second would become the Vice President. But that election of 1800, obviously illustrated that that was not practical. So the changes brought on by the 12th amendment to the constitution resulted in that 12th amendment and provided four separate elections for president and Vice President. In the event that there was not a majority, the top three candidates would then go before the house. The house would vote by state, each state having one vote. The rationale for that was the same as for the Electoral College. It was to prevent the larger states from dominating the elections. A simple majority in the house would then provide the victory. The physical process of the voting and how it was achieved, how it was counted. That is kind of a story for another day. What is pertinent for us today are the 1824 Election Results. There were simply too many candidates. By the time they got to the election in the fall they were for. Secretary of state, John Quincy Adams of massachusetts, secretary of the treasury, william h. Crawford of georgia, the speaker of the house, henry clay of kentucky, and senator Andrew Jackson of tennessee. The abundance of candidates assured that no one was going to receive a majority in the Electoral College and that was apparent by the late fall of 1824. According lee, the 12th amendment kicked in. The top three in the Electoral College role were jackson, adams, and crawford. These would be the candidates before the house of representatives. We do sort of attack team thing. One of you can come up and try to keep one of us away from the podium. Jackson men insisted that jacksons plurality of the popular electoral votes was a decisive factor in determining the outcome of the house election. In a letter to john on december 19th of 1824, jackson refer to himself as quote, having been supported by the majority of the people, which was not the case. But jackson correctly assumed that this was not the time for subtlety. With certitude and tenacity, the message was hammered home. Jackson had won the election because of the popular vote. He had won the election because of the plurality in the Electoral College and it was incumbent on the house to endorse these conclusions out of basic fairness. It was the only way, said the jacksonites to truly represent the will of the people. The jacksons managers assiduously tried to elevate relevance of these numbers and it is easy to see why. Jackson came in first. The Electoral College with 99 votes. 131 majority necessary for victory. It was jacksons significantly in the popular vote, that animated his supporters. 18 to 24 states in 1824 chose the electors by popular vote. Jackson had more than 40,000 votes in his closest competitor, John Quincy Adams, and more than 110,000 votes in william h. Crawford. The third place finisher. Lost in the comparison of these figures, however, is the reality that not one of these numbers really mattered. Only the electoral counts. Jacksons 99, adams is 84, and crawfords 41 are pertinent to the constitutional prescriptions for referring these men to the question before the house of representatives. The flaw the logic in the appeal of the popular vote is made evident by scrutinizing the case of henry clay, who had beaten crawford in the popular vote by more than 6000. Crawford had one louisiana, thanks to on the part of the adams and jackson camps in the legislature, louisiana it shows the elector. As a result, crawford came in first by winning louisiana and as a result, became one of the three candidates who is going to go before the house. This fairly, clearly shows that comparing the apple of popular votes to the orange of electoral ones, was in short, a pointless exercise. Because of the complicated nature of this question, which im sure you will all agree, is fairly complicated at this point. It would prove a highly effective way of manipulating public opinion. Consequently, the pressure to influence house members with these claims was intent and persistent. The house would not take up the question until february nine, 1825, which gave not only the supporters of jackson, but those of adams and crawford more than two months to cobble together the simple majority in the house necessary for victory. They also courted one another with promises, seeking pledges of support. The operatives moving between the operatives of the other two. Bending the truth and lying when truth did not seem to work. The Practical Applications of all this become evident as a result to what happened in january of 1825. Henry clay, was strongly inclined to support John Quincy Adams as soon as he knew clay knew that he had lost the election. He knew this in the fall. He knew it before louisiana. He was reducing that he was not going to go before the house of representatives. As he became aware of that, he only wanted to make certain that adams was supportive of his program for national improvement. Before throwing his support to him. To that and, you had an extended interview with adams on the night of january nine 1825. It is possibly one of the most pivotal events of american political history. The details of the meeting are never they have never been made clear. Adams usually recorded things illuminate sleet and completely in his diary. He does not with this. What is clear is that the results of the meeting where to be devastating to the reputations of both of these men. Clay was going to use has enormous influence after this, as speaker of the house in the cause of John Quincy Adams. There were certainly problems with this meeting. Its context was unfortunate where it took place in the midst of a world of proposed deals by all the parties concerned, including the Jackson Knights. Let me read a couple of passages from our book to illustrate how some of this deal making was going on. Ohio congressman, john sloan, found himself sitting across the dinner table from sam houston, an important jackson operative, whom used between bites that ohio, which surely go for jackson in the house vote. Sloan was an experienced politician in his mid forties, a jeffersonian who had preferred clay. His response to houston was measured. He had not spoken to the others of his delegation, he said guardedly. Sloan believed houston looked anxious as he spoke about what a splendid administration it would make with old hickory, his president and mr. Clay as secretary of state. Later, as houston bade sloan farewell, he made doubly sure his offer had not been misunderstood. While i hope you from ohio will aid us in electing general jackson, sloan recall him saying with a winking repeat of the proposed deal, and then your man, meaning mr. Clay, can have anything he pleases. And then there was the case of daniel cook of illinois. Old hickorys men heard the distressing news that the young illinois congressman Daniel P Cook intended to vote for adams. At 30 years of age, and then frail health, he suddenly found himself at the center of an unsettling effort to influence his vote. Illinois was a relatively new state. Its small population granted only one representative, but since each state had one vote in the house election, dan cook, by himself, was as important as all of new york or pennsylvania. Illinois had mostly gone for jackson. And all hickorys man forcefully demanded that those general Election Results do more than guide cook in the house vote. He should accept them as the verdict of the people or else. Pennsylvania, jackson man, samuel took this with koch. A rumored alliance of items that play would be unpopular, he muttered darkly to cook. It would hurt cooks career to join it. Ignore mwache the young man absorb the threat and saw someone not at all weighing his options to cut his losses. Ingraham according lee switched his mood and smiled benevolent late. Cook said ingraham could be territorial governor of arkansas if his vote helped Andrew Jackson become president. For Daniel P Cook, the offer of the whole world, was insufficient to purchase his vote at the cost of his integrity. But arkansas . Ingham new went to drop it. Henry clay was courted by the jackson men as well. The murkiness of these overtures encouraged significant misunderstandings at the time and massive ones later. Clay enjoyed the attention and prolonged it, which was unwise. It would be unfortunately easy to conclude in the setting that clay and meeting with adams, was arranging a quid pro quo for his support. As the february 1825 vote approached, expectations were high on all sides, and there was also a lot of discussion about how should the house consider the candidates clearly the . Intention of the constitution was to have it act independently of all general Election Results. What after all did the framers of the constitution intend . If the house were merely at to ratify an Electoral College approval plurality, why have the house vote at all . Electoral college plurality would be sufficient to select a winner if that were the case but that was explicitly not the case for the constitution. Rather the top three finishers in the Electoral College came before the house equally entitled with none favored over the other by any previous election result. The constitution clearly meant for the house to start its considerations from scratch. And then the vote was held. John quincy adams one on the first ballot. We need only be aware that adams was elected on the first ballot to everyones surprise, mostly to the jacksonites. Jackson at first was magnanimous which strikes us as an act perhaps. Then the very night after the house vote, jackson and adams came face to face. Again from the book, the monroes held their weekly reception and while everyone seemed drain by the experienced, they were also grateful that despite the angry talk, broad recriminations and a grinding apprehension, the election in the and had been decided with a calm dignity. The president s gathering was not festive but it was an eventful. Which was pleasant for people weary of events. A Kindred Spirit pervaded the whole scene, the National Intelligence reporter reported. The friends of the different candidates mingled together and conversed with good humor and frankness, contrasted with the virulence and malignity which in some parts of the country had attended the discussion of this question. President elect John Quincy Adams stood near the center of the room amidst oppressive people offering congratulations. He received them with a drawn smile and stiff bowels. He felt another precip people behind him interned just as Andrew Jackson turned to face him. The president s reception fell silent, guests suddenly became conscious of the cramped space and instinctively fact away from the two men to create a small empty circle within with them at its center. The last bit of straight laughter and murmuring voices went quiet in the corners of the room. Adams looked up at the gaunt face, Andrew Jackson bowed low, he extended his hand. Adams took it. The bow at the reception, that seemed promising, as did the handshake, but jackson was actually seething. And then the announcement came that John Quincy Adams hadnt named henry calais as his secretary of state. This set off the explosion. Jackson wrote to a friend, was there witness such a bare faced corruption in any country before . So you see the judas of the west has closed the contract and will receive the 30 pieces of silver. His and will be the same. Now a smear can only work if the behavior being decried is exclusive to the target. But this was not the case, we have already seen that jackson operatives had been working night and day to secure votes for jackson. The example of sloan and cook are just two of a number of instances. Then the activities of James Buchanan nearly did them all in. James buchanan was in insignificant pennsylvania congressman in 1824. He strongly supported jackson and wanted to do something, anything, to get the hero elected. Therefore he took it upon himself to become a power broker. By going into jackson and claiming that clay might support jackson if he promised to make him secretary of state. Jackson refused to commit and there it seemingly ended, at least until after the election, when jackson chose to use that interview with buchanan as proof that clay attempted to sell his support to jackson before turning to adams. You can never supported this version of events and finally he flatly, in the press, denied it. Saying he had never been an emissary from henry clay. This denial presented a problem for the jackson side. It must not be so. Jacksons insistence that this is precisely what happened gives the impression that jackson truly believe that buchanan and done with jackson claimed despite buchanans denials. Jackson continued to insist that clay had sent buchanan. It also points to a strangely unique sense of self and rectitude that guided jackson. Adams and clay were bad so anything necessary to bring them down was excusable, even law to tory. Now there were a lot of people that did not believe this smear. Some of them were actually in the jackson night movement. Martin van buren for example who actually ran the last part of jacksons 1828 successful campaign. He always remained very friendly with henry clay. There is also thomas hart benton, unenthusiastic jackson night. When he was also mrs. Henry clays first cousin. And then there is Thomas Richie, a latecomer to the jackson camp who had actually been a friend of henry clay back when they were teenagers in richmond virginia. This picture was taken about 1850 which was the year that during a dinner party, Thomas Richie actually admitted to clay that he had never believed the corrupt bargain smear. They all in the late 18 twenties fell into the same camp as jacksons supporter richard mentor johnson. Who said at the time that old hickorys men would oppose adams and clay even quote, if they act as pure as the angels that stand at the right hand of the throne of god. Well, in conclusion lets recall that the nature of a smear is either to fabricate a believable lie or bend the truth to the purpose of making a credible otherwise insupportable allegations. In that regard, the construction of a smear is by necessity counter factual. A truth becomes an obstacle to the smears purpose or it is made malleable and this becomes a tool to advance its purpose. At some point in this process, and as a result of it, this mere becomes a solace and corrosive project for those who promoted and those who believe it. Those who promoted and know its origins must make a fountain bargain at the outset and that is the most thoroughly corrupt bargain of all. The rationalization that the sacrifice of integrity is justified by the higher good of writing a wrong or stopping an injustice. Jacksons uncanny ability to weave and then don such rationalizations was strange and wonderful indeed. But those duped into believing the smear because of their trust in those promoting it, having investment in both the lie and its authors, that is as emotional as it is political. That as well becomes an enemy of the truth. The consequence of the lie are given life by desire, in a city and most strangely of all, righteousness. Buttressed by circumstance and purpose, the light becomes something more terrifying then in anti truth. It becomes received wisdom. As received wisdom, it transforms into lore, not a fabulous tale but a fable. Both instructive and cautionary. A guy to understanding what happened and a warning about the understandings deeper meaning. It is a myth that a lie is a Fragile Foundation upon which no structure can safely stand for long, little lone forever, because a light properly bolted and persistently told can last as long as people are willing to believe it. And at some point, it becomes a mortal. Because people go beyond their willingness to believe it to a reflexive embrace a bit. The lie of the corrupt bargain outlived John Quincy Adams and henry clay and all the others. Its still lives today in the mustsee corridors of our american historical memory. At the time though when it was fresh and vibrant and finding its legs, the charge that there had been a corrupt bargain in january of 1825 worked enough malice for a lifetime. They called into question the method of carrying out the election. When established by the constitution and sanctioned by all the participants in the election process. Until. That sort of potency undermines the rule of law, it defames opponents as intent and gross discourse, sometimes to the point of violence. All of those consequences destabilize the process of democratic rule. Objects lesson abound in Cautionary Tales are rife in this episode. One that remains highly relevant to our own time, beyond its value as a telling episode from our past, is worth remembering as a guide book for navigating a perilous future. Thank you. Well, we will take questions now. So you say that the smear. What role did it actually play in the subsequent elections and the election of 1828 and 1832 . It was used to energize the jackson item movement. The notion that they had been illegitimately deprived of the fries in 1824 by the virtue of the house election in 1825. Gave a great deal of animation to their efforts and a sense of righteousness to them as we pointed out that pervades every conversation that occurs in the wake of it. There is hardly an article in a jackson paper that does not work in some way the corrupt bargain into the narrative. And as a result, it becomes a pervasive and pernicious and completely ubiquitous occurrence that becomes code words. People could state those two words to anyone in the country and automatically know what they meant. By virtue of that, the people who were targeted, John Quincy Adams who ironically was probably one of the most propositive and had the most integrity of anyone who held the office of president , becomes a scheming corruption east. And henry clay was a statesman of longstanding with a fine reputation as a diplomat, a legislator, a grand lawyer who took on unpleasant cases for the good of the country and for the good of individuals, was painted as a libertine and a patron. There were duels fought over this. Clay john for john right rand if who is a senator from virginia. The motivational factor behind this is incalculable. And as a result, it does assume mortality that lasts to this day. Does that make sense . I was going to ask you this so you cannot act surprise. But what jumped out at me is i see doing the tag team thing, i wanted to know the difference is in your styles. You relish the drama of the moment and david you are laying out the methodology of your prohibition and so on. When you get to riding, how does that dynamic play out . As cowriters im interested in this as fiction, but as a historian im interested in this as a piece of history. How do two historians sit down and write a book together . For 37 years. With each book, we have approached a little differently. Like for instance, our biography of henry clay, which we will never do it this way again. I started it at the beginning. He started at the end. We tried to come together. We did not come together exactly the way we thought we should. That took a little bit of work in the middle. The Washington Book and then this book, we wrote to our strengths the things that we had been most interested in. One of us would write maybe that section. Then we always edit each others book. I will freely admit, david is a much better writer than i am. And you are. I am a much faster writer than he is. So, what we would do after writing a section, we add it each other so that the voice sounds the same. It sounds like one person wrote the book, and weve never had anyone come to us and say, oh i know you wrote the section, or i know he wrote that section. It is it has never really happened because of the editorial process we go through. Of course our editor at the press has a lot to say about what is included and some of the language, so that helps bring one voice as well. Does that answer your question . Thank you. What does this tell us about the Electoral College . We have in direct elections here in the United States obviously. Going back to the election you discussed this afternoon. When louisiana voted for the electors look what you put up a popular. Vote count. Did you explain that whole process . The democratization of politics was well underway before the war of 1812 and it continued to decelerate afterward. So that the broadening franchise, a lot of more people could vote. It occurred in tandem with the notion to popularize the electoral choice. The period before this, the majority of states legislatures elected electors the way they did senators. That changes. I mentioned there were 18 of the 24 states in 1824 that had popular votes for electors. Louisiana was not one of them. That is how they were able to control louisiana as much as they did. They were able to detain people from going to vote in baton rouge. They were able to stop them once they got there from voting the way that they were supposed to and pledged to. Deals were made. Largely between the adams and crawford people. The jackson man jackson was strong in louisiana. So they used adams and crawford to blunt his strength and give the vote to crawford who is a very much a long shot. That kind of manipulation was possible and state legislatures. Where it was not in the popular vote. The tendency by 1828 is even more, and then by the end of the period as we move to the civil war, the only state by the outbreak of the civil war that still does legislature choice, is south carolina. All of them go to a popular vote as part of the democratization project of the american political system. Especially in the second American Party system. The Electoral College is wonderful mechanism because it does prevent populace states dictating to others. Less populous states. The idea that the federal system and parts a sovereignty and importance to both large and small states, that otherwise would be removed in the absence of that. The National Referendum is essentially it would give you a National Executive based on three or four highly Populated Areas than the rest of the country would have to live under that. They saw that that would be a recipe for division and ultimately, this union. But the constitution does not provide, does not find the delegates as i understand. They are pledged . Pledged to whom . And the selection, for example what you have clay supporters, jackson supporters, crawford supporters. Those people, within the legislature, for instance, would vote for electors who were pledged. They were the ticket. They were the ticket for clay, or they were the ticket for adams. Same thing in the popular vote. In the book, we have one of the illustrations, is one of the tickets. What they would do is they would distribute these, whether they were popularly elected or if it was for the legislature choosing. They would distribute these tickets so that the voters, would know which men were pledged to a certain candidate. They did not have to vote the way they were pledged. They still do not. But, that would be a recipe for ruined careers, if you pledged that you were going to vote for that jackson and the Electoral College and then you voted for adams, and the voters who voted for you would want to exact some revenge on you, whether its political or business, or whatever. Generally speaking, electors have always voted, most of the time, for those people they were pledged to. There are defections. It is not unheard of. Very rare. New york had some defections. Madison had quite a number of defections in 1812. From various states. They just didnt vote for him. They voted for other candidates. But it is remarkable, bad faith for people who cast the votes. But the jacksonites did, after 1825, they used the 1826 elections as a referendum on the 1824 election. Those members of congress, at the house of representatives, who came from states that had voted for jackson and yet voted for adams instead, those legislators, congressman, they were punished. A lot of them were defeated in 1826 midterms as a penalty for having forded the will of the people, as the Jackson Knights set. Trump in the debates that said that the election, i would hear expect the elections did you see any parallel since you were writing this . I realize you wrote this before the last election. Were you sink parallels with modernday tens tensions . Jackson never said plug publicly that adams did not win the election. In other words, he did not challenge the legitimacy of the election on a legal sense. I do not see similarities in that way at all. His argument was that the numbers had been raped. Obviously, adams won the house vote. It was close. He took the necessary 13 and that was it. New york was a decisive one. In that decision. That was never the question and jackson actually was fairly magnanimous as jeanne said, in the aftermath of this for about 24 hours. It dawned on him. Something was not right. It is almost as though after the election, jackson and his people kind of figure out what to do next. It was obvious that what had happened was sanctioned by a procedure and prescriptions in the constitution. What they did is they seized on the appointment of clay a secretary of state as a mechanism to promote the idea that some corrupt deal had been made. In that way, they could question the legitimacy of the election through it being rigged. That is how they worked that out. That is not an unusual thing in the aftermath of it. It was unusual at the time. It was an innovation. It is one of the modern politics aspects that we explore in the book. That is not unusual afterwards. It was highly unusual at the time. It is why it really did baffle adams and clay for quite some time. Why anyone was taking this seriously. It dynamic any sense to them. When it became apparent that it was being taken seriously, they reacted rather reflects of lee and in ways that and some respects was unhinged. Which gave more credence to the charge. As the story true that at the inauguration, adams went to shake jacksons hand, and jackson had rachel on one hand and niece on the other and said excuse me, mister president but my hands seem to be full at the time . Yes, the 1824. The 25. That was the last thing he ever said to John Quincy Adams. They never spoke again. Even though adams would be in congress during jacksons presidency. They never exchanged pleasantries. In 29, adams did not attend the inauguration. Which was fine with jackson. He developed a loathing of adam that matched clay. He hated clay. I can give you the exact moment, at least within the hour of when clay and jackson came to figurative blows and never had anything to do with each other. It was the afternoon of january 20th 18 nine tea. Clay stood up in the house of representatives and criticize jackson for invading florida. In a three hour address. It was masterful, but made him embittered and a terrible enemy out of him. There was a lot of talk that jackson which are lynch clay over that speech, but it was considered bad form to challenge someone to a dual forcing something in congress. Because you are supposed to have the freedom. Clay had actually broke that tradition when he challenged john, because he had actually made an accusation on the floor of the senate in 1826. Accusing clay of essentially being a cheater. So he challenged him. That was unusual. They fought the dual. Randall of had decided at least the night before, and probably a few days before that he was not going to fire at clay. Partly because friends had tried to talk with him. Thomas, who i mentioned who was mrs. Clays first cousin, had spoken with him. He was determined not to fire clay was very angry and he tried to kill john. In fact, one of his bullets round off was wearing a really billowy coat, for good reason, so that there would not be a clear target, and one of the bullets went through the coat. He was trying. But then when randall had his neck shot, he shot in the air. That ended it. They shook hands, and seemed to be bosom buddies for about five minutes. As long as it took round off to come back to the senate and then he went after him again. If you think that we have interesting news, you can imagine the newspapers covering a duel between the secretary of state and the sitting u. S. Senator. They had been enemies for years. Isnt clear the one who ordered randalls dogs to yes. That had been a standard indulgence for randall. He would bring his mastiffs during deliberations. When clay became speaker, he leaned over to the sergeant of arms and randall came in and said get the dogs out. They did, and randall fuzz furious