Rachel shelden are writes on the political atmosphere in washington d. C. In the 1840s and 1850s. The author reports that the personal relationships forged by many the politicians of the day impact a legislative writing and left lawmakers prepared for succession. This is about half an hour. First i want to thank all of you for coming. Its great to see some familiar faces and some others and its great to be at one of my favorite oak stores. Ive been coming here for a long time so i appreciate the invitation. It is really appropriate for us to talk about the role of washington d. C. Here at the capital amidst a sesta lucas centennial sesquicentennial. The sesquicentennial commemorates 100 years of the civil war and capture the lives of more than 700,000 americans north and south. And when we think about the civil war, its typically with a sense of the divisive relationship between north and south and the violence they captured the nation well before the war began. Men from the north and men from the south were angry and angrier challenging one another with words and with guns over the issue of slavery. And washington d. C. Has long served as sort of the epicenter of that discussion. When we think of the coming civil war probably our most common picture is of the caning of Charles Sumner and antislavery center senator by Preston Brooks on the floor of the senate in 1856. Im going to talk a little bit about this in a minute. But tonight i want to talk about how the picture of washington as violent and divisive is actually misleading. Instead the real key to understanding washington in the mid19th century is to recognize that in many ways it operated more like a social fraternity, hence the name washington brotherhood. Politicians came to washington from around the country to a city that does not look much like what we see today. It was dirty, it was dusty, it was gross. It was not a vacation destination. Depending on the session they would spend up to nine months living together in hotels in boarding houses scattered across pennsylvania avenue from the capital up to the white house. They talk to each other at parties and had walls and at state dinners and hotel bars across the city as well as social and religious clubs. I want to highlight two key consequences of this closeknit Washington Community. First, introduce Something Like it social and political code in washington. A set of norms for Political Behavior that those outside the capitol city really didnt understand. Even those people who didnt really like each other much pretended to treat each other in the same ways you would imagine a fraternity to operate. He kept things in the family. Second, the experiences of living in washington often insulated politicians from the outside world. They understood the sectional conflicts of the mid19th century in the context of crosssectional cooperation in washington. What this meant in practice for the antebellum period was that many southern politicians were simply unprepared for this speed in which it was called in the winter of 1861. So depending upon your field washington, you might recall this inside the beltway mentality before the beltway existed. I just want to highlight these two features of Washington Society in the mid19th century, the role of the social code in the way in which politicians were isolated and then hopefully you will have some questions for me. So let me start with the social and political code of washington and particularly the code that existed in the capital itself. When we think about congressional policymaking in the 21st century we generally think about capitol hill and maybe even the capital itself is the place where politicians give important speeches and hammer out deals. This may surprise you but in the 19th century almost none of that happened in the capital itself and there were a number of reasons for this. Im just going to focus on the house of representatives here to make my points a little bit easier to illustrate. In the antebellum period the house of representatives averaged about 240 men coming from all regions of the country and it was very hard to corral all these men attentive and sober to listen to a speech in the house of representatives. It was sometimes hard to maintain a quorum. A majority of the members of the house. There was no system of balance lakers today where you can get people to come in and take their seats. Typically accepting cases of an important vote or a very very famous speaker, you only have about twothirds of the house in session. The rest of the politicians were out of town or they were hanging out elsewhere in washington. Many of the exciting bars and brothels and other places in the area or they could be in the capital getting drunk at the hole in the wall which was a little tavern in the basement of the capital. If you are unlucky enough to get a seat at the back of the house, you probably couldnt hear what was going on. Remember there were no microphones in the mid19th century. When you have that many people, you are not going to be able to hear as well. The acoustics in the house were not very good and people complain about this. If you didnt want a seat in the back you were just out of luck. Those in the house itself were also not necessarily of Good Intention and this is an important part of thinking about the way that washington politicians understood what was around them. When you are living as a politician in the 19th century you did not have a staff the way you would today. You didnt have people who were taking care of your correspondents, who were keeping in touch with your constituents so you had to do all of that yourself, which meant that a lot of times it happened in the capital itself. People would write letters home. They would write letters to their wives. They wouldnt Pay Attention to us going on on the floor. They would be corresponding and if they didnt feel like listening they could talk to their neighbors or sleet or whatever they would want to do. Congressman generally didnt feel bad about ignoring these speeches because the real politician politicking did not happen in the capital itself. As a result most of what happened in the capital fell into the category of 19th century speechmaking that congressman called the origin of the word bunk comes from this. The definition of speechmaking was giving a speech on a bill or an amendment that basically had nothing to do with what was going on in the house itself but was strictly made for the purpose of pleasing their constituents. Every congressman in the 19th century made these speeches frequently. This was part of the experience of living in washington and understanding the way things worked. He wanted to please your constituents so you would make these speeches. In fact it was so well accepted that congressman would make speeches that sometimes they wouldnt even make the speeches. They would write them out and hand them over to the congressional record reporter and a reporter would put them in the congressional record. Nobody complained about this. This was part of the experience of working in washington or working in the house. This was a part of the congressional code so we have to think about how washington operated as being outside of the capital itself. One more important aspect of this washington paternal code takes us back to Charles Sumner. I just want to remind you a little bit of the details of Charles Sumner. Its a particularly colorful moment in our history. There had been much fighting in kansas as a result of the kansas nebraska act of 1854. In 1856 it had gotten particularly violent and Charles Sumner and massachusetts senator got up in the senate and delivered a speech that was very much accusatory of the south. He called it the rape of kansas trying to influence the votes there. He also said some pretty nasty things about a man named Andrew Butler who was a senator from South Carolina. Butlers cousin was serving in the house by this time. A man by the name of Preston Brooks. He did not hear the speech but he read about it and he thought this was a problem. So he decided to confront someone. Sumner completely unwittingly avoided brooks for some time. It does just happened that they pass each other at times when brooks couldnt go to speak to him and after a couple of days of this brooks got very angry. He waited for sumner in the back of the senate and he went up to him once the galleys were clear and struck him over the head with his cane more than 30 times. Sumner fell into the aisle way in the senate and had to leave the senate for some months to recover. So this is a story that has long been told is something that really proves how device and and divisive washington wasnt certainly it became divisive outside of washington. It came divisive in the north and in the south but if we look more closely at washington in this period we can see that its part of the larger culture of violence and vice in the capital that was not so shocking to the people who lived at that time. It was part of the social and political code that im talking about. So as i mentioned washington is not a vacation destination. Its a pretty grubby place to live in the mid19th century. Its not very suitable for ladies. We talked about this all the time. It was much more of a mans place. This made it much more of a fraternal experience. Men engaging in drinking and gambling another raucous activities without the eyes of their wives on them and i just want to give you a couple examples of this. We talked about the drinking that happened in the capital but there were also a fair number of congressman who drank in the house of representatives itself. If they felt like having a drank while they were listening to speeches they might bring in some drinks. Several congressman were known for being drunk while serving, while speaking and Preston Brooks in our story was also probably drunk still from drinking very heavily the night before when he struck sumner. There was also a substantial amount of womanizing that took place some of the cumbersome than the mid19th century, Daniel Webster and john c. Calhoun were rumored to have women on the side. But this was another example of how it fit within the washington code, the political and social code. People did not talk about this. It wasnt all over cnn. This was something that people kept within the family, within the fraternity. There were a number number of trysts that happened in washington. There were a number of examples of people getting involved with each other spouses and one of my favorite examples of this may sound familiar to some of you, was a truce between the wife of a man by the name of Daniel Sickles in new york democrat in the civil war and the u. S. Attorney for the district of columbia, philip mckee. D. C. Politicians tried to keep this out of the papers. They didnt talk to anybody about it. Its not like reporters were reporting on what happened between these two lovers. But people whispered about it in washington and eventually he found out. He accosted philip mckee in the middle of washington square, shot him and then turned himself in. He is very famous now for being the first person to be acquitted because of temporary insanity. But this was a good example of how we can learn about this today but it was something that was kept secret for a long time. As the story tells you violence was also a pretty regular part of the washington experience and not just between northerners and southerners. Some of you might think the southerners were the ones that were more violent. Not true at all. Northerners were just as violent. One of my favorite stories of violence took place between William English a democrat from indiana and William Montgomery at democrat from pennsylvania. Montgomery was apparently unhappy about something because when he ran into english on 18th street he refused to say hello to his former friend. Explaining, i speak to no puppies, sir. English didnt like his reaction. He was a slight man where montgomery was about 200 pounds and so he lifted up his cane and smack montgomery over the head with it create montgomery fell over and seeing a loose brick on the ground through it at english and they got into a pretty spirited tussle. This was one good example of northerners getting involved. Violence also to place in the house of representatives just as it would with sumner. This would happen between several members of congress. One of the most famous examples this is republican de lucia grove of pennsylvania and lawrence out of South Carolina who became angry with one another on the floor of the house and they became so angry that they had a fistfight with nearly 30 people. They have been fighting for some time when an illinois representative by the name of a lie who took a swing at William Barksdale of mississippi buddy aimed too high and William Barksdales wade went flying off of his head. Nobody in the house even wore a wig so this was quite amusing. The house starts laughing uncontrollably and the route is over. So what does this tell us . It tells us that this is a pretty common thing in washington. There is a lot of violence but its part of the regular experience. It happens and then its over. This is the context in washington in which the caning of Charles Sumner happened. Its not a situation where washington politicians than become so angry with one another that they cant speak to each other. They are over it in about three days. Not true elsewhere in the country like washington. The experience of washington politicians with the sumner brooks scandal also helps us to understand the second aspect of the washingtwashingt on fraternity and that is that politicians could be isolated from what was going on back home. Although sumner and brooks were from the north and south respectively the difference between the two places was not as stark in washington itself. When senators and congressman came to washington it was almost impossible to avoid becoming friendly with people from other sections. The Washington Community operated in such a way that politicians were forced into a regular series of parties, and dinners that were overwhelmingly crosssectional. Those men and women, the few women that came to washington were required to participate in the system of washington socializing is part of the effort of the day so if you were for example a member of the house of representatives, it was your duty to call on members of the senate, cabinet members, justices of the Supreme Court and the president. You had to call on each of them and they had to call back on you. The result of this was that you had to get to know people. You have to have the opportunity to get to know people from all parts of the country. Men were required to show up to state dinners as a show of support for an administration. Many would spend evenings dining together particularly at william corchrans house in washington where they necessarily encountered men from all sections of the country. The living arrangements of washington further highlighted this. Hotels were never divided up between northerners and southerners. Congressman alms often live next door, two men from another section and border houses were overwhelmingly crosssectional which meant that men would live with other men from other sections who couldnt afford to live in a hotel so the result of this crosssectional development developed into a lot of crosssectional friendships. These friendships didnt make them less committed to their home state or their section but it did cloud their ability to fully understand the anger that was coming out of the south and the north at this time. Just to give you a couple of examples and then i will let you have some questions. Abraham lincoln and the future Vice President of the confederacy Alexander Stevens became very good friends while working in washington. They enjoyed each Others Company and lincoln didnt know much of the south other than what he learned while working in washington when southerners were willing to compromise and talk with him. Jefferson davis feature president of the confederacy counted the number of northerners as his closest friends including including the antislavery new yorker who will be the future secretary of the state in the lincoln administration. The story was rumored to have nursed Jefferson Davis back to health during one of his fits of illness. These friendships and the washington experience help explain why davis and others were so surprised by the speed at which it took hold in the sadness by which they met the end of the union or what they expected to be end of the union. There is great scene at the end of this, Jefferson Davis and goodbye to his fellow congressman folding up his things and walking out of the capital weeping the entire way. Its not the picture we think of Jefferson Davis but even Jefferson Davis understood that this was a serious moment and this was a moment he was not necessarily expecting. What i want to leave you with tonight is the idea that washington during this period was not a typical divisive and violent place that you think of when we think of the coming of the civil war. In many ways it was the exception. It was the kind of place where you could escape some of that divisiveness. As a result of that we cannot think about these people is causing the civil war as being emblematic of how the civil war came. Thank you. [applause] i would love to take some questions but they have told me that you need to use a microphone so if anyone would like to use the microphone and asked the question i would be happy to answer it. All right, a brave soul. This is really off topic but its kind of a logical question and on the minds of a lot of people. How did we get to the state we are in now . Really rather than answering the explanations for that maybe a little little bit of the history of of when this change. It seems like late into the 60s there was plenty of socializing going on. Im not sure statistically whether anybody really knows now if cross partisan socializing goes on. I am sure it does but im sure by all accounts its a different world here now. How much do know about this . The 19th century was different from the 20th in the 21st century in terms of these kinds of experiences so course the fact that its all men in this period makes a unique trait i would say one of the things that is key about the politicians in the mid19th century is that they live in washington for a long time together. They spend eight or nine months in washington at a time where they dont go home. If you are from texas he wouldnt go home because its hard to get there. So being forced into the situation where you are living together and interacting in this way probably had a big impact on the politicians of the 19th century. We also have a much bigger government now in terms of the number of people who work in washington. You could know 80 of the people who lived in washington at this time because it was really focused on the politics. It was the place where you do politics and almost nothing else. As a result of that there is a focus on whats going on with the social relationship in the 19th century. Now washington is huge and we have all kinds of other things we are doing and as a result of that is harder to get to politicians to the same degree. Im not sure when it broke down or if youre broke down. I guess we dont really know whats going on behind closed doors but certainly it looks different than how it did in the 19th century. And fortunately i missed most of your presentation but when i came in, im very serious about comparing where we are today to ancient civilization. I dont think we are still very civilized. We are supposed to be a civilized country but we live with very, a very very backward mentality for many many things in many areas. I just came back from is done ball and i spent a month in turkey. I dont think we have come very car and my question to you, do you think we are a civilized country in the United States of america . I see as it depends on what you think civilized is. Certainly today we wouldnt describe the 19th century politicians as sinful. That is part of the problem. I think we have changed a lot the way we have viewed our daytoday experience in the 21st century. People dont hit each other over the head with a cane if they are mad about something because they will go to jail. Not sure in the 19th century so our perceptions of the 19th century which also is why think its been hard or us to understand the violent context of washington in the 19th century. We sort of think if its violent that it must have been very angry as well. It was not so much in that direction. I would like to i have read a little of your book and i also did some research in this period great if you could talk a bit about differences perhaps in the people in the status if you are a calvert and you were in the house of representatives but that your family was nearby but your family was here. Now you are substantive center sponsored bill of the was different because red family and you also had a house and you had people over a lot. So could you talk a bit about the difference with the influence and what goes along with it when you have your family there and when you are just the guys [inaudible] excellent question. One of the things about being a visible politician in the mid19th century with family or just with your wife is that you have more requirements to get involved in Washington Society. Your wife also had to participate in this calling system, only to a greater extent. So as a result of that you are going to be much more visible. You had a house you are going to host parties and dinners and i think generally people who hosted parties and dinners would invite people from both sections. Generally they would focus more on one party than another. If you are democrat you are more likely to invite democrats but not true of everyone living in washington. I mentioned william cork man. He was a socialite ,com,com ma bank or someone who contributed a lot to washington. He was one of the most committed to a crosssectional washingtwashingt on community in part because he knew that his livelihood depended on it. As long as he was able to help keep the country together he could make some money, have his friends beyond good terms with people from both sides of the country. And so he tried to be facilitate that crosssectional interaction which is why i say he always invited people from both sections of the country to his house. It was a wonderful place to eat. He had all the best food in the whole in the boarding houses in particular you had some pretty nasty meals so you never pasta for dinner at corchrans. A lot of this was about getting involved as possible to allow due to stay longer, alleged at more influence, allowed you to get to know the people. If that answers your question. Hi three at i have two things and things that i want to get your thoughts on. You made some important points. I remember i think i read in the book and i dont remember the author that Jefferson Davis was incheon mandolin and getting the capital dome built and how interesting this was in the paradox at the time that the country was falling apart. Its this sort is testament to the strength of the union going up and is being driven largely by the southern law. That is one and im answers did in your thoughts on. In relation to that what you are telling us what does this tell us about the coming of the civil war if anything . Is it forestalling it, is it hastening its . Does washington really dropped the ball and is there something that could have done about it . So just maybe get your thoughts on that. I would say that the key to your second question is that washington didnt prevent the civil war. They arent responsible for it although some of those speeches contributed to some of the anger. It was more the Grassroots Movement by people who were injecting the political system. And particularly rejecting the political system that Jefferson Davis had been a part of. You hear this writer today that we have got to get rid of these washington insiders. The same thing in the 19th century. The washington insiders for the worst thing to happen to our country. I would say that they didnt so much dropped the ball as they were oblivious to the wall and they didnt know what they were doing when it came to that. They tried to create peace. They tried several times to create some sort of compromise before the civil war came but they werent able to actually do anything about it. Jefferson davis is a great example of the Washington Community. Hes basically a career politician. He is very much committed to Washington Society and has all kind