consumers and taxpayers and create an exclusive american oligarchy that fuses wealth and political power. we watched passively because we believe that we can enter the club. suzie in l.a. good afternoon. >> i want to thank you. a very deep, and they're really opens many of our minds to very important concepts. you really try, at least from my observation, to present a lot of deep thoughts and the objective reality. i was troubled in the area when he talked about the least. you check with your history in terms of the people there. i was wondering also if you had an equal knowledge of hebrew and

the people on that side? >> well, i lived in jerusalem for two years. i don't speak hebrew. that was a conscious decision. to be working in syria or baghdad and speak arabic and have in the hebrew words creep into your arabic could immediately lender in prison, although i have to say that eventually in both iraq and iran , there were thrown in jail anyway. i have a great affection for israel. and i think that the parameters of the debate about the least and about the israeli-palestinian conflict is far more broad than the united states. my opinions are not particularly controversial. in jerusalem amongst most of friends. they are in the united states.

the israelis favor as probably the best coverage of any paper in the country. all of these are written by israelis used. these are really to agree to a great journalists. they do is real credit. so i think that the frustration for many of us is that we saw possibilities in the relationship. i knew king hussein. the assassination, we watch that hope essentially vanished. israel, as the united states, as it to become captive to a really

rapacious redwing. the israeli foreign minister who is openly called for the ethnic cleansing of israeli and palestinians, this was unthinkable when i first got to jerusalem. for me is really a debate about the health of the middle east and the israelis did itself. i don't think they're responding to injustice to the use of force of the occupation is in the long term productive for the state of israel itself, yet at the same time, of course, i adamantly opposed, and there are those within the arab world to call for the destruction of the state of israel. most days to make clear our own, if he's been a lot of time and flintridge, we are funded on historical justice, but we have to work out as we are being wanted to come and accommodation whereby we spoke people can live

with dignity. >> you can watch this and other programs online at book tv. next a look of the political life of aaron burr, vice president of the united states rete 01-1805, who gained notoriety for his duel with alexander elton in 1804. he plans to create an empire comprised america's western territory. this is just over an hour. >> we are delighted here, the kansas city public library to have the return of david stewart . after a bike career, lawyer, and litigator, his second career. years ago he published a book, the summer in which this nation was created. a best seller.

a couple of years ago a publicist is impeached, another wonderful book about andrew johnson and all of a great trials in american history commander you're happy to have your public library talking about that. now we are doubly happily. i am happy to have this wonderful book about ehrenburg, the duel with alexander elton, the alleged attempt to separate from the united states the western part of the united states and the great trial presided over by john marshall. also, there is an event in the book that i think you need to read about. the first try to separate west florida from the spanish. there were live willets of contenders.

you can read about them. the lesson about a week before the spanish showed up and chased them away. the book is full of grace stories. become a great author of popular history. in some academic light popular history is not love of very highly. it has become a great of four and millions of people like david mccullough endeavored morrison and david stewart. some academic historians have become very popular historians. the library, for instance. it is about narrative, telling stories. no dove to that is what makes the popular. but it is much more, but telling us what is important to of our history. it is wrote human character and

what it has to do with the story usually told with some sympathy for the human characters as difficult than others as they may be. and with the right amount of color, the kind of color that we'll see in the most interesting characters in our daily lives. not quite as colorful the law but that the think of him as the end the killing of historical fiction. and then every great historian has a unique talent. he was trading as a lawyer in breaks to history what i think of as a forensic attitude. this can be distinguished from an argumentative attitude that argument to historians take. there is a general concern was with the evidence lead this. when motives are mixed, as they clearly are in the story, it is

particularly great quality. the question that david will answer for us, that his blood cancers, and i hope the talk will answer, was he a trader or was he merely another westin adventure? david stewart. [applause] >> they you very much. it is great to be back here in this wonderful building on a somewhat breezy day. and to have the opportunity to talk about aaron burr. of was interested in doing this story because i read very good histories but historians about

burgling last up to the duel with hamilton. there was this something like whenever you was up to. it seems to me that the men had been the third vice-president of the united states. we ought to have an idea what he was up to. there ought to be in a kilt. there was a big trial. ancilla set of in pursuit of the story, and i found it remarkable story. it is too partisan venture in one part thriller. but before i get into that i wanted to a little background. the united states 1905. the country is not yet 20 years old. it is an infant. we don't really know how things are going to turn out. we don't know how much coverage

is going to work. we have had some basic problems. 1796 had been a lot of come. the constitution worked the way it works now. the states chose electors and the electors within and voted for the president. each had two votes. the highest of revokes was president and the second was vice-president. john adams was elected president pledged his opponent to what thomas jefferson, was elected vice-president. and did 1800 to limited the want to have that happen again, so all the republicans voted for jefferson and burr. so the result was that they ended up in a tight. there was no winner.

so under the constitution the election went to the house or reason lives. in the house of representatives the federalists decided they like to burn better, and they would vote for him. thirty-five balance that took a week. really a constitutional crisis. that is now only a symptom of how parts of the constitution just were not working, you still have the electoral college. but it also gives some sense to what thomas jefferson might not have liked aaron burr very much. one of the undertones. they never go along.

very different people, but after that election jefferson would never do anything for were and it was going to piggyback. another feature of this was, it was not at all clear that the united states was going to remain the united states. just a year or four there had been a secession movement, and some of the leaders had come asking him to jordan. the movement in the west. then the spade. spain was not allowing.

there was a movement. indeed cal it was the risky rebellion. both were led by people who did not want to pay taxes. this is an american staple. politics is that is a whole lot. but it was shocking to find a letter that jefferson wrote. he wrote the sentiment twice in 1804. the difference of the prospect of secession. he said to whether we remain in one confederacy, believe it's of very important to the happiness. a western conspiracy will be as much our children and descendants as those of the eastern.

imagine that president obama were to say, well, if they want to go their own way, that's okay. i will still think well of them. but it was really a question. we have the original 13 states. the other side of the known. the various territories. two years before, 18 up three. purchase the louisiana territory from the french. this was a wonderful transaction , not the least of which the virtues i found was the creative lawyering to close the deal. no wonder the western boundary of the louisiana territory. there were no maps. the french simply deeded

everything that spain had ceded to france. the western boundary billy was not known. but also, you see the gray areas on the mat. texas and all the way up to california. ..

>> we find aaron burr. burr came from a very distinguished family, not a wealthy family, but a distinguished one. his father was president of the college of new jersey which is now princeton university. his grandfather had been president of the same college, his grandfather was jonathan edwards, the great theologian, sort of unsettling. burr as a very young man, he was still a teenager, ran off to join the continental army when it was camped in front of boston. he joined an expedition into canada in the dead of winter, one of the most difficult and unsuccessful expeditions in american military history. he won great distinction. although he was a small, slight man, it turned out he was extremely tough and hearty. and he had a real military disposition. and by the age of 21, he was a

colonel in the continental army. and he commanded a regiment at the battle of monomouth. and men who served with him for decades thereafter viewed him with great awe and respect. he had been wonderfulfully successful, brave and courageous officer. he retired, resigned from the army after four years, his health had been compromised by a variety of mishaps. but the military experience really took with burr. he was through his life a man of action, not man of ideas. he fancied himself a military figure. he was always referred to as colonel burr, and he, his carriage, his attitudes tended to be quite military. after practicing law very successfully, he was a smart fellow and a good lawyer -- i hope to come back to that -- he went into politics, became attorney general of new york, became united states senator

from new york, and in the 1796 election he finished fourth by 30 votes and then, of course, in the 1800 election he was in a tie with jefferson and became our third vice president. he was an ambitious man, and being vice president, of course, he thought meant he would be president. our first two vice presidents, john adams and thomas jefferson, both became president. so why wouldn't aaron burr? um, he also, though, was a different sort of person. he had -- i don't mean to make, be too flip, but in many ways he's the bad boy of the founding. he had a different take on the great figures we tend to mythologize, the leaders of that era. it is something i probably participated in some of the myth making myself. but burr knew them, and he didn't think they were such hot stuff.

he thought george washington was sort of dumb, he thought alexander hamilton was really unpresentable, just -- he was a bore, just was unacceptable in his behavior. and he thought thomas jefferson was a coward. he, in his personal life, made some unconventional choices. he married a woman ten years older than he. certainly not the custom at the time. she was a widow, at the time, of a british officer. that was a controversial thing to do. in fact, when they had started keeping company together, the british officer was still alive. [laughter] he did, somewhat conveniently for the marriage, pass away of a tropical fever, and burr was in no way accountable for that. but he was always in his life an

advocate of women's rights. he felt women were at least the equal of men in balance, if not the superiors. he educated his daughter the way any young man would have been educated. she was often described as the best educated woman in america. she knew greek and latin and could converse comfortably with everyone. um, he also was an avid ladies' man. his wife died when he was 37, and he did not remarry until he was 77 which gave him 40 years of bachelorhood which he took advantage of. at one of his longtime friends said after his death, it is remarkable that l colonel burr achieved as much as he did in view of all the time he spent pursuing women. he, and it's very difficult to capture over the century the

charisma of an individual, but people found him a magnetic presence. as i said, he was a small man. he was not flamboyant. he was not noisy. alexander ham hamilton would wak into a room and sort of take charge and tell his stories in a loud voice, and if he'd had enough to drink, he'd jump on the table and start singing. um, that was not burr's style. burr was reserved. but there was a charisma, there was a intensity, an obvious intelligence. but also about burr there was always a sense of mystery, a sense of secrets. and a sense of danger. which people reacted to very strongly. um, as a lawyer late in his life, he used to instruct his colleagues, things written remain. and he lived by that motto. he left very few written

records. his selected correspondence is two volumes. they're still working on madison's, and they're up to about 50. he's a very different type of personality. now, 1804 was aaron burr's very bad year. i apologize, i mention to show you theodocia burr, his daughter. 1804 went very badly in a number of ways. first, he learned that he was not going to be a candidate for vice president in the 1804 election. jefferson had him dropped from the ticket. this couldn't have been a terrible surprise, but it certainly was a disappointment. burr decided that what he would do is rebuild his political fortunes, establish his -- [inaudible] by running for governor of new york which he did in the spring of that year, and he got beat. he lost rather badly, actually. so while sulking over that, he

learned of some very rude remarks that had been made about him by alexander hamilton during that campaign. he sent hamilton a note demanding that he either retract the remarks or explain them. hamilton wrote a rather mealy-mouthed response. things devolved from there, and they ended up fighting the famous duel in new jersey. it ended very badly for hamilton. he died. i always love this illustration. i put it in the book. it was the illustration in all the books about the duel for 100 years. it was in the books i read as a boy. and what i love about it is hamilton's grabbing his head even though he was shot in the torso. so it's not terribly accurate. um, like so much of history. um, although plainly hamilton

the duel, it's hard to say that burr won it because he really was ruined by the duel. um, he was indicted for murder in new york state. he was also indicted for murder in new jersey. and he had to flee to philadelphia to avoid arrest. so you had the sitting vice president of the united states under indictment for murder in two states and on the lam from the law. this was a remarkable turn of events, and aaron burr understood that his political future was pretty much over as a conventional political figure. and he decided to turn his attention to the west. it is an american tradition when your life goes south, you go west. so when he left office as vice president in 1805, he made a six month journey down the ohio and mississippi rivers. this map, which i hope you can

see, the dotted line is him, his outward bound, outward trip which follows the rivers and the solid line is when he had to go through the forests, basically, to get home. it was a zigzag, as you can see. he called on a great many important men and midling men during this trip. he dropped in on two future presidents, andrew jackson and william henry harrison, several senators, a couple of militia generals. he was always interested in militia generals. he most often went to see continental army veterans. we had at the end of the revolution, we had not paid our soldiers very well through the war, and as compensation they offered the officers land out west. it was really a roman tradition from classical days. and many of them moved out

there. so burr would look them up, and they all remembered him fondly. now, because he had been such a young man during the revolution, they were often older than he, and he was really talking to their sons much more than he was talking to them. and recruiting them for an expedition he wanted to lead. he also called on and recruited an irish expatriot, a man named harmon who will come into the story again. he was a sort of ichabod crane figure, he owned an island in the ohio river and had a legacy that he was steadily frittering away, and aaron burr could always help people like that. but the most important person he connected with was this gentleman, james wilkinson, who was the general and chief of the army. now, our army at that time was a rather pathetic operation.

it had been 5,000 men. jefferson didn't like the army, so he cut it back to 3,000. will kennison was the general in chief, basically, because no one else really cared to be part of it. the soldiers were a rather ragtag group. they were poorly paid, poorly supplied, spread out across the frontier. and will kennison was a rather remarkable figure. he was at the time he was general in chief of the army a secret agent of the king of spain. and for a 20-year period, he received bribes from spain. he was secret agent number 13. i always like that, it sounds like maxwell smart. [laughter] he wrote reports on american politics and american military events. it's not clear the spanish actually got much value for what

they paid him. that was often the experience with wilkinson. indeed, theodore roosevelt said in all our history there is no more despicable character. but in one of his reports, and i'm trying to keep an open mind about wilkinson, he tells the spaniards about the lewis and clark expedition, and he encourages them to intercept it and to arrest lewis and clark and haul them off to mexico. and then he tells them about daniel woon's settlement -- boone's settlement, and he encourages the spanish to break it up and send them all back to kentucky. well, if you're going to sell out lewis and clark and daniel boone, you're just a bad guy. that really pushed me over the edge. and there is an episode in the handover of the louisiana purchase which will give you a feel for wilkinson's personality. he was a florid, extravagant, hard-drinking guy. he had few military achievements. he was court-martialed with some regularity. he was always exonerated. it was said of him that he had

never won a battle or lost an investigation. [laughter] and at the handover of the louisiana territory, they had a formal ball. and, of course, most of the residents in new orleans and that area were french-speaking people. they were called creoles. they were not at all happy to have the united states taking over their land. it was a foreign country. people, they were no longer going to be able to speak french to their, to their government. so at this ball the band was alternating between french and american songs to keep everybody happy. well, wilkinson got liquored up, and he demanded two american songs in a row. he was the man in charge. now, what's particularly odd about the story is the second american song was "rural

brittania" which you have to believe was chosen just because it could annoy the french, not because it was really very american. when that was done, the french broke out in a spontaneous chorus of -- [inaudible] at which point a brawl broke out. and after they were done beating each other up, wilkinson led the americans out of the hall in triumph. all that was missing was humphrey bogart and ingrid bergman. but it does give you a flavor for what wilkinson was. he came across to many people as a baf toon. i'm sure aaron burr thought of him that way. and it turned out wilkinson was a very dangerous baffoon. wilkinson and burr do reach an agreement. and that agreement, the content of which is the subject of much

lying, much inquiry and still disputation today, was what drove the story. but if i go back here, burr dropped in on wilkinson here in the ohio river on the way down, and then when he was coming back up, he goes way out of his way to see wilkinson again in st. louis. now, during this journey burr tells, follows a certain narrative in the his meetings. we have a number of accounts of how, what he would say. because, of course, he never explained himself afterwards. you don't get a memoir from aaron burr. so he told the westerners that the atlantic states were oppressing and exploiting the western states. that the west in 1805 was like the atlantic states in 1776 at the time of the revolution.

well, it certainly sounds like he was telling them they should rebel. he also told them that the separation of the west from the rest of the country was inevitable. he didn't tell them to do it, he just said it was inevitable. he said that a war with spain was highly desirable so we could get all those good spanish lands. he also talked about mexico with a romantic, lyrical way. you have to appreciate what, how americans viewed mexico at the time. mexico was producing two-thirds of the world's silver. there was tremendous wealth coming out of mexico. but, of course, it was a colony of the spanish king. so americans had this view of mexico as sort of a cross between a penal colony and el dorado. great riches and also oppressed people who needed to be liberated. we might even export democracy to them.

this is a powerful force in american imagination, still is. um, burr told people that mexico was there for the taking, and americans should do it. and underlying all of this message is the clear message that thomas jefferson was a panty waist, that burr could take him and that they should go off on their own. now, the question i posed at the beginning which is what was he up to is not an easy question because he basically described in all of the various conversations that have come to light to date five different purposes for his expedition. he intended an expedition. and i try not the call it a conspiracy because it was so

public. it wasn't much of a conspiracy. um, a couple of times -- i don't think he really meant it, but he did say it a couple of times, he said that with 200 men he could conduct a coup d'etat in washington, throw congress and the president out of the city and take over. now, he, i think, was right away on an adrenaline high or had been drinking too much. i don't think he ever really meant that. he never tried to do it. somewhat more often, though, he talked about there being an insurrection in new orleans by the cree wells and that -- creoles and that they would cel welcome him there and they would secede as would the rest of the louisiana territory. often he talked about leading a private invasion of mexico and florida. he also said if united states were to go to war with spain which he thought was exactly what the united states should

do, it would be his privilege and honor to lead american troops in such an invasion. now, of course, that wasn't going to happen. president jefferson was never going to let aaron burr lead american troops, but there were militias, mississippi militia, louisiana militia, tennessee militia, maybe he might have been able to get himself into a position of power. he was the most 'em -- 'em meant man who had crossed the appalachian mountains. it was a short history, but he was. he had his presence. maybe he could have made it happen. and there was one other thing he said which was he would lead a settlement of this territory. it's called the bastrop tract. much of american land development in that era was, essentially, a cascading series of frauds. people sold land they didn't own, they sold land they'd never

seen, they resold it, they mortgaged it, they sold it without -- it was a scandal that happened over and over. and the bastrop tract is a great example of that. i detail it in the book, i won't do it to you tonight. burr, for a song, acquired a flimsy interest in the bastrop tract and said he would lead a settlement of that. i don't think aaron burr ever meant to live in this particular then-rather-remote part of the country. its only virtue was that it was close to the spanish border which perhaps one could provoke a war. now, all of these different plans that he unspools for his conversational partners occur under the backdrop of this expectation that the west shall secede. and the historians who do

express an opinion -- not all of them say, they can't figure it out -- some say burr was a complete traitor, he meant to lead a secession of the west, and he should have been hanged. and there are those who say, you know, he was really a misunderstood guy, he was just going to settle the bastrop tract. my view is that aaron burr meant all of the things he said. he really wasn't sure exactly what he could get away with. what would be possible. i think he meant to organize this expedition to lead these men down there and just see what he could make happen. and i found myself when trying to piece this together thinking, and i end up with cinematic images, unfortunately, of misspent childhood no doubt, but many of you will know the marlon brando movie, "the wild ones,"

where he's the leader of a motorcycle gang that takes over a small california town. they terrorize the town. and about halfway through, the sweet young thing says to brando, what are you rebelling against? and he says, what have you got? and i think that captures a bit where burr was at that moment. he was looking to make something happen. it was audacious, it was outrageous. i don't want to dismiss it, though, as frivolous which i think some people do. he had such a fire of ambition inside him which one couldn't see because he was such a reserved fellow, but his behavior shows it. he needed fame. he had come, his career had ended in ashes really. he was 49 years old. and he wanted to leave his name in history. and this was the best way he could think to do it.

fame, for his generation, was not the sort of flimsy celebrityhood that we think of today. it was a recognition of your character, of your quality as a person. and that's how he thought of it. and he wanted to do great things. and i think he also, in part, wanted to get back at jefferson. who played a big role in his, in his bad outcome. indeed, burr met with the ambassador from britain, and he told him that he was going to leave this expedition, he was going to take over new orleans and invade mexico and florida. he asked that a british fleet be sent to new orleans to meet him there, and he said this would, of course, result in the dissolution of the united states. he didn't seem unhappy about that.

and, of course, if it had worked, there would be no jefferson memorial on the tidal basin. now, the expedition was finally launched in 1806 in the second half, and it was an epic botch. burr had built boats for more than a thousand men. um, he had boats built on beaver, pennsylvania, in marietta, ohio, in louisville, in the wabash river in indiana, and he clearly expected a huge outpouring of men who had already signed up. and, remember, there were only 3,000 men in our army. if he had had 1200 men and boats going down the mississippi river, he would have controlled every piece, every territory he passed through. it would have been the greatest force for hundreds of miles. but some things broke against

him. the recruits were scared off by a few developments. first, the u.s. attorney in kentucky became suspicious of him. a local newspaper in frankfurt started running stories exposing burr's plans, at least 50% of what the newspaper wrote was fantasy, but 50% was pretty accurate. shot so bad, actually, as -- not so bad, actually, as the journalism world goes. and the prosecutor tried to summon a grand jury to hear testimony and bring charges against burr. finally, he was able to get a grand jury there. he presented his evidence. the grand jury came back and said aaron burr's a fine human being, and we think our prosecutor should go home. but burr escaped -- so burr escaped, but his reputation took a hit. at the same time, a man named william eaton whom burr had tried to recruit, he was a

military figure, issued an affidavit -- he was back east at the time -- describing all of burr's outrageous plans including that he might have, lead a coup d'etat in washington. this really upset a lot of people. this was not just an invasion of mexico, perhaps, maybe this was, in fact, a treasonous activity. and then president jefferson finally roused himself. now, this is october of 1806. ierson has been receiving reports -- jefferson has been receiving reports from the west for 16 months that aaron burr is up to no good, that he's raising troops, that he's trying to lead a secession of the western part of the country, and jefferson has done nothing. he hasn't lifted a finger. this is one more reason, i think, why burr thinks jefferson is just a lightweight. but finally jefferson issues a proclamation. and he doesn't name burr, but he says there are people out in the west who are thinking of doing bad things, and americans should

not be part of it. and this combination of events completely turns off people who were going to join his expedition. a number of them still do get off, but only 100. they leave from blennerhassett island, it will become important again. and they make their way down the river, and burr's not with them. he's off with andrew jackson trying to get jackson to join them, and jackson won't because he's troubled by some of these reports. and burr goes down the cumberland river from nashville, and he joins them where the cumberland runs into the ohio river. and there happens one of the two dramatic moments of this event. burr's joining his men for the first time. many of them haven't met him. so they gather on the river

shore in a circle around him. he goes around the circle and shakes hands with them, greets them. and then steps forward to say a few words, but in that period of time -- it's sort of news when 100 guys show up in boats and land on the shore there -- some of the people have gathered on the shore as well. so burr gestures at the other people and says, i can't really tell you why we're here. and that's it. now, i was personally astonished that the hundred guys got back in the boats and kept going. if he can't tell them why they're there. and during the trial chief justice marshall points to this moment very specifically and says, you know, if all he was doing was settling the bastrop tract, he could have said so. there was something else he was up to.

they continue down the river until they get to bruinsburg which is down just above nachez, and then things finally fall apart. the only way burr can you succed now with this small group of men is if wilkinson joins him and brings the army over with him. that, it appears, was their plan. ..

use the letter and doesn't do what burr expect him to do. instead of being a double agent he will now be a triple agent. so he double crosses burr. this way he will earn the gratitude of the spaniards and spanish territory, and stop the secession. he hurries off to new orleans. tries to destroy evidence of his involvement. arrests all the people in league with burr. he knows who they are. he ships some of them east, decreed -- declares martial law, suspends the courts and when burr is detains he is in fear of his life. he fears that wilkinson will have him killed.

so he is brought in front of a grand jury in mississippi. was that evidence against him? and the grand jury comes and refuses to bring charges against burr. mr burr is a fine man. angry that the government is wasting its time by trying to prosecute him. i think there is an element here of people in that part of the country thought invading mexico was a heck of an idea and they didn't see anything wrong with it. burr was held on bail even though they had not brought charges. he jumped bail, fled to the east through the forests of what is now alabama and was arrested by army troops. was brought back to stand trial for treason. he ends up in front of john marshall, our finest judge ever into an amazing trial.

it was our first trial of the century. as most of you know every century in america has a dozen trials of the century. this was our first. we have a former vice president of the united states on trial for treason. imagine what cnn and fox news would do with that today. he faced capital punishment. he face the gallows. he assembled a legal dream team. defense lawyers were delegates in the constitutional convention. build them attorneys general of the united states. one was the finest trial lawyer in richmond and there was burr who was the best lawyer in the room. except for the judge. prosecutors were no slouches. one would become the attorney general of the united states for 12 years and there were critical legal issues at stake. constitutional definition of

treason was very important, central to the case. the founders of the country -- the framers when they wrote the constitution were in trouble by the use of treason by english kings as an instrument of oppression against -- it is the only crime that is defined in the constitution. it has to be levying war against the government, giving aid and comfort to the enemy and there have to be two witnesses to present evidence of an overt act of treason, spelt out. also at issue in the case not directly with burr but his confederates was the meaning of the habeas corpus laws. requirement that when somebody like wilkens and arrested people without due process get to go before a judge and test the evidence against you. justice marshall insisted the habeas corpus laws had to be

applied even in a case of treason. in the last ten years with all the litigation over the men in guantanamo, the chief justice marshall holding in the burr case was central to many of those cases. also executive privilege. burr was not a passive defense lawyer. the first thing he did was attack. jefferson said i am the president. chief justice marshall responded the motion to get the president's record and says he is -- not above the law. he had to produce his records. the court would decide whether they are produced on the defendant. i saw on the news.

government and congress's subpoena records of the solyndra phone from the white house. i am sure they are talking about executive privilege in the nixon impeachment case and frankly every time we had a situation like that. it all started with aaron burr and chief justice marshall. the case itself went off because the indictment was so badly written. i have already described to you two different grand juries acquitted burr. would not bring charges. jefferson became convinced it was not a good idea to try burr out west but to try those people convicted. they wanted to bring a case in virginia. virginia would be jefferson's

people, jeffersonian republicans. they could not find neutral jurors after days of trying to pick a jury, burr says i will take the next one. i think he should be hanged. burr says i don't care. the reason he didn't care was he was trying to case to the judge. any jury in virginia was going to fry him but he needed to win with the judge. the indictment was written in order to get the case in virginia, they claim the trees and happened and leonard island. there was the reason i was talking about that. it was still the western edge of virginia and across from west virginia which seceded during

the civil war. and burr wasn't there. it was a rookie mistake. it made it answerable after 14 witnesses. justice marshall said down the prosecution case and sent it to the jurors. it didn't stop the lawyers from speaking at extraordinary length. one of the lawyers, i take some pride in him. will reputed for drinking brandy throughout the trial. he always kept his mug field and gave an argument that lasted 14 hours. i will speak for less. the final motions, he spoke for three days for 21 hours and the people who left it were amazed. he did repeat himself. they were sort of board but they

said his energy was remarkable as was the fact that he never got worse -- horse. one of the prosecutors gave a speech that lived in american oratory for 100 years. the school children were forced to memorize the letter hasn't speech in which the prosecutors contrasted of the innocent dupe with this evil burr. he compared burr to the serpent in the garden of eden. as metaphors go it is not the one you want to have applied to u. i want to read a brief passage. we don't get oratory like this in the courts any more. the conquest was not difficult. innocence is simple and credulous. such was the state of eden when the serpent entered. the prisoner burr winding himself into the open and and

practiced part found it little difficulty in changing the native character of the object of his affection. by degrees he infuses into it for fire of his own courage. a daring and desperate first for glory. and artur panting for great enterprises for all the storm and bustle and hurricane. good stuff. but the jury under the instructions given to them by chief justice marshall under the evidence that was presented wouldn't convict. they returned a verdict. the customary verdict even then was guilty or not guilty. those were the choices. this jury was so frustrated that they couldn't convict that they returned a verdict that read the defendant was not proved to be guilty. under this indictment, by any evidence submitted to us. i have never seen a verdict like that before. by the best evidence against

burr never made it into the trial. there were reports the spanish and british ambassadors as to what he said about them which were buried in diplomatic archives for 75 years. correspondence between burr and wilkens in which neither of them was willing to produce. they both said -- this was a remarkable bit of drama, that it would be wrong to disclose another man's private correspondence. as a gentleman they would be unable to do that. mutual deterrence they both held on to those letters and never -- burr's confederate refused to testify against him. we have the account of one of his confederates, eric ball when, taken from prison to meet with president jefferson. jefferson -- what burr intended. according to him, take baton

rouge, sees the ships in new orleans harbor. not sure how you see the ships without taking control of the city. it sounds a lot like leaving -- leading an insurrection. burr himself tried some of his intentions. several years later when he was in europe. after the verdict he went off in exile and tried to persuade the british. and lead liberation to south america. the british were not willing to do so. it is a fascinating episode. even speak spanish. he starts taking spanish lessons. of wonder what he was thinking. he then ended up in paris and talk and napoleon into underwriting him. he submitted memoranda to

napoleon before them and that describes his intent as well. is true intentions were a matrix. take a private force down river. not only sees baton rouge and west florida expected an insurrection by the french-speaking people in new orleans and would be greeted as a liberator. but sees the ships in new orleans and lead an invasion of mexico and if all went well there would be a new empire spanning the gulf of mexico from the florida keys all the way around to central america. west which he would never actually try to secede directly would be very encouraged at drive any country that controlled new orleans because that leads to trade and prosperity. this wasn't carved in stone. if there was something else he

could do he would have done that as well. this is not just an amazing adventure story although it is. one last image here. this is burr when he came back. he came back from europe and practice what rather quietly and desperately for another 20 plus years. there were real consequences but burr tried to do -- not all of the consequences were intended by him. his failure had the effect of reinforcing the union, making secession unattractive. he invited the dissolution of the nation and most americans declined the invitation. the legal principles i talked-about that were established in justice marshall's opinion live with us today. the meaning of treason, reports of habeas corpus and executive

privilege and more important than any of them is the principle that even if you are former high official of the government, even if you are the spice throughout the country you are entitled to a fair trial. you are entitled to every right the law would give any defendant. the courts will not be in a heated by political pressure. where burr excelled was in his geopolitical mission. his military vision. the lands that he craved really were there for the taking. he knew whoever took them with live for generations as a hero and that is what happened. andrew jackson of florida in 1818, a big part of this claim to become president. sam houston led texas independence.

became the founding father of that country. zachary taylor and winfield scott led the invasion of mexico that burr had intended. zachary taylor became president when phil scott became a candidate. based on that achievement. one of the symmetrical moments and -- in history happened in 1835 year before burr dies when he reads in the newspaper of the independence of texas. he proclaims i was right. i was only if 30 years too soon. was treason in me is patriotism now. it was far too late for aaron burr. thank you very much. happy to take questions. [applause]

[silence] >> yes. my question had to do with wilkinson. at the time of the lewis and clark expedition which went to the northwest there was another expedition that went to the southwest. that trip -- they were captured by the spanish. did wilkens and have anything to do with that? >> yes. you are describing an expedition which wilkinson commissioned, very fine book, not an easy book to read by a fellow in the 50s where he has a couple chapters about that and it is clearly his view that he was supposed to find the invasion route that will concern wanted to follow

into mexico. that was the purpose of the trip. he never actually proves the case. i don't know if it is true or not. i left it out of the book because i couldn't make up my mind. actually spent a terrible winter in the mountains and rockies and almost froze to death. it ended up being a non event in american history. >> years ago i read a fascinating story, conspiracy story about whether mary miller the -- meriwether lewis was on its way to give testimony. there's a conspiracy that part of that was to damage -- it was true -- through that action that

those two individuals hired assassins to kill him. it is that a story? >> it is a story. wilkinson gets accused of a lot of things. burr was in europe. hard to argue with that one. louis's death was mysterious although there's a lot of evidence he just killed himself. wilkinson was accused of poisoning mad anthony wayne, the great general and has been tarred with the vote lewis story. i have not seen any evidence. >> two questions. the first was he mentioned the action of jefferson. this is due in part to the fact that jefferson foresaw that there could be other countries as part of the -- we think of the louisiana purchase that he

thought not only expanding the united states but might be other countries formed from that. that is why he thought we will form another country but wasn't concerned about that. my second question was about secession, the unintended consequence for burr that he made secession unpatriotic but it was so popular, he was in new york and wasn't just a seventh thing and you think of the federalists and hartford convention they were talking as well. did they think about secession in constitutional terms or just as something like you mentioned it is in the american blood. is a session that way? >> that is a lot. secession just to deal with that quickly if i can, new england secession was economically motivated. it was because of the embargo

that was in place and the economy in the war of 1812 and they didn't support the war. i still think it was very important that burr failed -- that secession -- it was viewed as the worst criminal in american history other than benedict arnold. when the southern slavery issue reached a full boil secession came back but when you look at the previous period when suspension was rife in activity as a plan there is a difference. jefferson's inactivity is hard to explain. it is never explained. he may not have believed the reports about burr's activity. he may well have thought that burr will fail on his own but it is too ridiculous a plan. afterwards he says in europe --

in this country it is simply the people rejected it and it failed of its own weight. there's some truth to that and to be honest it's done more because it just sort of verbal bouts but i don't have a definitive answer. jefferson never felt the need to explain. from his point of view it ended very well. >> for more information visit the author's website david stewart.com. >> when the president and congress were debating after the 2010 elections whether the bush tax cuts would be extended because of the recession and would it be a bad idea to raise anybody's taxes in this down

economy one of the things republicans said is tax cuts are always wonderful in a down economy but spending cuts don't hurt at all. which is self evidently crazy. there is no different from a macroeconomic point of view as our friends in the u.k. are planning now when they went for an austerity response circumstance. the 1603 tax credit, they said it was a spending program. the argument will be held in a seminary over some obscure provision of scripture. the republicans they get rid of 1603. it is not a tax cut. it is but it is since. when the congress did things

like loan guarantees for new energy companies like the infamous solyndra loan guarantee, actually adopted during the bush administration, signed by president bush and supported by almost all the republicans on the energy committee. it is hard to pick winners and losers. that is not what 1603 does. sixteen 03 recognizes that a lot of people building solar and wind installations are start up companies so if you give them a 30% tax credit that you would ordinarily give someone for building this new factory will be worthless because there's no income to claim the credit against. so basically gives them the cash equivalents. if you don't like solar and wind energy and want to keep the oil depletion allowance or any other tax credits for traditional

energy, you can make that argument. a very significant number of the new solar and wind projects have 1603. my argument is it ought to be extended because we have thousands more facilities in solar and wind power becoming more economical everytime the price drops 30% for solar and wind every time you double capacity and solar in particular had significant technological advances, one of the reasons solyndra went down is the technology got cheaper and faster than anybody figured. and took them out of a competitive mix. i like the 1603 and i think it should be continued because i think we should be supporting start ofs as well as existing

companies. very significant percentage of american jobs over the last 20 years have come not just from small businesses but also small businesses that were 5 years old or younger. this is the kind of thing -- my argument is we should see where do we want to go with this country? do we want to build shared prosperity and be competitive and back up from that and say how we get there? what does the government to with the private sector? if you do that, government or no government you come out and say this 1603 is a good deal and we ought to keep going. >> since you mention the end of 2010 i wanted to give you an opportunity to repeat something you said earlier which is one part of your book you gave the president a bum rap around the debt ceiling debate. you have been in the coverage a lot. >> i was really upset. not sure if the white house and

congress resisted raising the debt for ceiling in 2010 after we lost the election. >> when we had the majority. >> because i knew and congress was meeting in november and december of 2010 and in january republicans would drive a hard bargain. and so i said in a very muted way for reasons that were still unclear this didn't happen. gene sperling actually sent me an e-mail that says you work for me. a scrupulously honest person. said we tried. we didn't make a big deal out of it because the main subject was the bush era tax cuts will be extended. but this shows you i am trying to force myself to say once a day either i don't know or i was wrong. because i think it would be therapeutic if everyone in

washington did that. and so i want to be as good as that. here is something i was wrong about. since raising the debt ceiling simply ratified a decision congress has already made to spend money and since the budget is the only thing the senate votes on that is not subject to a filibuster, i thought raising the debt ceiling vote was not subject to a filibuster and i was wrong. so gene sperling send me a message, senator mcconnell said the was going to filibuster unless we agreed to alter the budget. i said right on. she couldn't raise the debt ceiling. and i was wrong. that is one way we get ideological politics. people find errors they make and fess up. >> moving out of washington.

one of the things you do frequently in the book is slated samples of where you think this appropriate partnership and shared responsibility between government and the private sector is working at the state level. you could talk a little about your theory of that and share the examples particularly from your time as governor of arkansas and continue to work and not work subsequently in arkansas. >> first i think we americans are used to people at the state and local level. because of business. trying to save business and expand business and locate businesses and it is largely a bipartisan activity undertaken with daring levels of exuberance by elected officials but one reason i w