gets compounded and inspired. i mean, but i think also in terms of -- i would have said, and i do say in my epilogue, yes, it's going more to identity, affirmation and movement-building. but then you turn around and you look at what's happening with the demonstrations against the question of whether to invade iraq, and you can see how demonstrations can be very driven by immediate policy needs, and policy questions. and i don't think -- i mean, indeed, the complaints i hear on radio from people critical of them is, oh, well, they're not coherent. there are many people marching next to each other who do not agree on other issues. they do not just feel like they're all with their brothers and sisters. and yet they feel a common political mission on this issue. and that strikes me as still the possible forum for whether it leads to direct change of

president bush's policy, i would still say no, it's not likely, but it has obviously changed other people's policies. and not just our marches, but other marches, as well. so -- oh, i am inspiring. let me go to you. [ inaudible ] >> talked about the recent marches on world bank that aren't necessarily government, but they're political and the police -- the actions of the d.c. police toward the protesters and how that changes the age of washington as the people see. >> yeah. it's a -- that is -- that is one of the things that i would argue, that partly because in washington i think particularly there has been this creation of a tradition of marching on washington that much more depends on the notion of a large, peaceful march that when people do plan these more disruptive marches, there is

almost in some ways more leeway for the washington police, or if it's the park police, depending on the area, to crack down harder. even if in some cases it's not within the bounds of legal process, i understand that there's litigation still going on about the 2000 world bank protests here. but it still seems like there is a fair amount of sort of general support for that notion, that that's not the right way to protest in washington. smaller groups -- i mean, what i call ritual civil disobedience, where you're not really intent on disrupting, where you go and sit in front of the white house and you know that if you sit there for 20 minutes, the police will come up to you and arrest you. that, i think, is perfectly within the bounds of what washington police know firmly how to handle. they negotiate with you, they figure it out, you get some bills, some people decide not to give their name.

but these disruptive protests are clearly something that they don't want, and they're willing to do a lot to stop. i mean, from preemptive search warrants to declarations of court, which they would not do for other demonstrations. and in a way, i believe that's something that the washington police has more a right to not -- i'm not saying this is necessarily a positive thing. i'm just saying it is an observational thing. because of the tradition of a different kind of protest in the city, that kind of delineation is more possible here than in other cities where there isn't so firm of like this is a custom that people use all of the time, so now this violates that custom. when you go to geneva, or switzerland, people there don't say this shouldn't happen here because there is a different way of protesting that is different

and powerful here. they would say, oh, maybe that's what you've got to do to stop -- if you see them as the big bad guys. that's what you've got to do. so, i mean, it's an interesting problem for me. and obviously, you know, i'm concerned when they're clearly violating our civil liberties. but on the other hand, i'm -- i personally went through my little stage of thinking that, oh, it was ever so wonderful to be as irritating as possible as a protester, and have moved beyond that stage. so perhaps i look at some of them and say, you know, stop being so hire irritating. so i can understand. i've talked to police officers. it's irritating. you carry your 15th person to a police stand, you're getting tired. you know? and i have some sympathy for that. that's a real thing. yes, sir. >> when you give your presentation in other parts of the country, less sophisticated parts of the country, you get an

appreciation for the protest in washington. is it sympathetic? do they think we're crazy? do they think we're unamerican? that's question number one. the other question is, you barely touched on it, but the role of the media in this whole process. whether they become more blase, their tendency to undercount or overcount in reaction, et cetera. >> my sense is, you know, i'm not such a world traveler, as you might like to imagine of me. but my sense is that people pretty generally have an image of -- a kind of march of washington that they think is just fine. they may not think it's politically relevant to them. they may not think it is inspiring. but a large assemblage of people on the mall, in washington, is okay.

i mean, when people who were outraged by the anti-war protests were calling me up, and were challenged not by me, because i'm not quite the type, but by hosts on some radio shows, you know, like -- well, are you saying they shouldn't march? oh, oh, no. i'm not saying that. i'm just saying, you know, they're feeding saddam husseins and supporting his cause by marching. so on that question, i think there is a -- there is, i think -- i think not -- it's not something that just washingtonians are v come to tolerate, because what choice do you have? or i think it's -- it is more widespread than that. and i mean, partly because there are so many diverse groups that have marched on washington that -- i mean, i couldn't know it, but i think sort of a lot of people probably know someone or know someone that has marched on washington and they think that person is okay, so it can't be

all crazies. the question of the media, i think that they are an incredibly influential part of how marches on washington have been perceived through time, the katzees army would not be remembered, except for the media decided to cover it. and it fit with media conventions of the time. they liked at that time because of the nature of reporting and the difficultieses of getting stories to have serial stories. they would carry coverage of a story over days, days, days. of i mean, the trial coverage of, you know, someone who had an affair, accompanied the -- the katzees army march across washington in the newspaper. and it just went on and on, and in detail that we would never imagine in this age in which you get one day and then you're done. you know, like -- you know, that's it.

and that fit. and so it created this whole -- it inspired others. because there was all this reporting. katzy's army, which started off with 200 people, got 500 more people to join it, and was inspiring people all over the united states to join the march. they're seizing trains in oregon and california to get to washington by may 1st. so the media can help a march immensely. and during the 1963 march, one of the things i noticed in contrast to today was how much they covered not just the march, but the organizing. there are reports on what they were thinking about, their strategy. and that makes a big difference in us understanding, instead of these events sort of popping up and then disappearing, where you don't really get a sense of what are the consequences, the controversies, the issues that people are grappling with. that has tended to disappear. and i think that's partly because television has a much different sense of the medium.

i mean, they covered the march on washington in 1963 live. at least one network did. now -- i mean, maybe cable is going to change the world. the million-man march got some live coverage because of that. because there is enough networks to cover, but not everybody can watch it. and mostly you're going to end up with very, very short reports that in my mind tend to reduce marches to how many people showed up. as if that is the only criteria for whether something is politically relevant. and that, i find, is too dismissive of the power of marching. in the back. you've been very patient. >> i've participated in it many marches, going back to vietnam, right up to -- [ inaudible ] and early on, you could get very close to very important venues, up against the white house fence and so on. but in this new fortress

mentality that has developed in washington, we're not allowed to get very close to those buildings anymore. are you concerned that it's going to be -- we're going to be pushed further and further away until the march will become irrelevant? >> i'm concerned. i think there's two sides of it to me. one thing is that there was a real strategy on the part of both the 1941 negro march organizers and is the 1963 organizers to see the value of using the space like the mall and being somewhat separated from both congress and the white house as a way of placing yourself in an independent, almost creating, you know, a third branch. you know, i know there's so many branches of government now, we don't know which term. but here we are. we're over here, and we're speaking to both of you. so that they sort of moved away from the notion that getting up close, which was very important to early protesters, and came back again. i mean, that was clearly key to

anti war protesters and later protesters. so i think, you know, you can reimagine them and say it doesn't matter so much. and i think the tendency now for there to be more and more protests in different locations at the same time, which is a testimony to more -- to the resources and different scales of organizers today makes it somewhat different. but it still does -- it's just not -- when it's not completely believable to me. i mean, i have heard all -- i mean, you know -- i mean, i -- you know, i'd love to go back and talk to some of the people i've talked to in the park police and in the department of interior and so forth. but it just -- it's not, to me, a scenario that, like, has viability, especially when you do a special arrangement, because of a protest. i mean, you know, my

understanding with the code pink protest is that they weren't allowed in areas that are generally open to people. and in which they were going to use in ways that are standard procedure and that they crack down on them because they were a demonstration. now that seems to me wrong. of i mean, they're not different, and i don't think they're that likely to be carrying a bomb or going to be detonating something. and if they were, then that would be a different security issue than location. because that would be -- could happen in many places. and, i mean, indeed, the first orders right after september 11th, what they focused on, they did -- they quoted that as the threat and when they closed lafayette park and stuff like that. and then they lifted it. and i've got to say, i thought that was reasonable. i mean, they did say, no. you know, they seemed to come

somewhat to their senses. but when they built these fences, it's amazing to me, the boundaries are getting wider and wider. and this is in light from new rulings from the court. the supreme court just ruled in 2002 that the sidewalks of the capitol were a public forum. and protected by the rights of the people to use them. because tourists regularly walk on them. now, this point is somewhat, you know, because of the construction right now, they aren't open to the public. but they're not -- they're not, in my knowledge, they weren't originally going to be closed to the public. but if they are, then there is the court -- they have that space, time, place ruling, legitimacy. so i mean, i have to say that i think people need to pressure them to think about what, you know -- i mean, is this is a serious threat? i mean, i work in a building that, you know, we now have new security provisions, and, you know, it's -- it's not -- they

aren't sensible. of what people did, because it was a particular moment. and hopefully at some point people will be able to back back and say what do we really need if it there is a real threat here. and i just don't see from my perspective, i don't see t. i just got asked the other night by someone who teaches riot control and demonstrations, whether or not i would come in and talk to his class that he teaches to military officers and stuff like that. and i was like, yes, sir! i would love to. because i want to learn that part. i mean, i read those manuals from all the different periods of time to see what people were thinking about how do you control crowds? what do you do about demonstrations? and that was fascinating lesson. and i want to talk to them, because that's part of being educated as a scholar and a citizen, to understand what their thought process is on these issues, so that i can be more responsive, but also

express my opinion intelligently. so that's what i hope for. i'm afraid that i -- what, one more question? and then -- yeah. i have -- hi. >> yes. i would like to know, in your study of the demonstration on washington, d.c., do you see a relationship between the way the political system as such operat operates. very open to people or is it [ inaudible ] moving away? and the type of demonstrations that are -- that come to washington, d.c., and do you believe that if what people -- political scientists believe, that as the system is more and more closing itself down to mass participation, that that may indeed lead to a different and a

new type of protest [ inaudible ] distribution, that type of imaging -- [ inaudible ] did you look at that in your study? >> i most certainly think when there is gross disparities in treatment of different types of citizens that then there's protests that highlight that kind of disparity. i mean, that's clearly -- was one of the early uses of washington, and a continuing use of washington. so -- because it's such a potent place to claim citizenship, that's one reason to use it. but in terms of, you know, dramatic shifts in the political train, you know -- i mean, i know i might be speaking blasphemy. to me, in comparison to other countries, the united states has not had such a dramatic changes,

even in the last century, during which this tradition developed. i think the 1960s, it was not so much of a closing down of a system, but of a sense that there was such a desperate need to highlight causes that people turn to more radical tactics. i mean, nixon had many faults, and i'm not saying he was, you know -- but he was not the whole political system. there was still the opportunity to testify. there was still movements in congress. there were still votes. there were still many other things. i think it was the spirit of the time between the civil rights movement and the vietnam -- anti vietnam war movement that made people, after working so hard on so many issues and trying so many things and then seeing certain things that just didn't change, they were like, we're going to try other things. now, clearly, in places which

have more extremely authoritarian governments, you have a whole variety of different techniques in which people turn to protest. i mean, you can have everything from, you know, the mothers in or argentina who turn to almost a silent witness almost to highlight the disparity between their suffering and what the government was willing to do. and in other places, you can have violent uprisings in which people tried to overthrow the state by force. like the czech may be an example right now. in america, i don't feel like we've had that kind of like huge shift. we've had subtle, of course, changes in republican, democrat, governments. but to me they haven't been so extreme to change the whole method. what has changed is the legal climate, our acceptance of different forms of political participation over time. and that's definitely led to more -- a wider variety of

styles of protests that are possible. i mean, these different supreme court rulings coming in sense the 1930s have definitely established this notion of a public forum that before that, the first amendment was not interpreted that way. so that has, you know, helped change. and that's not because the supreme court saw the light. but it was also because people took to the streets. so -- >> thank you. next week on history bookshelf, nelson lankford discusses his book, "richmond burning," the last days of the confederate capital. he says the fire was intentionally ignited before the union soldiers arrived and allowed to burn freely. history bookshelf airs on

american history tv every saturday at noon eastern. there's a new website for american history t, where you can find our schedules and preview our upcoming programs, watch featured video from our regular weekly series, as well as access history tweets. history in the news, and social media from facebook, youtube, twitter and foursquare. follow american history tv all weekend, every weekend, on c-span 3 and online at c-span.org/history. last year, the mcconnell center at the university of louisville held a conference on henry clay and leadership in the u.s. senate. at the conference, u.s. senate historian donald richie, spoke about clay and the foundation of the senate. this is 40 minutes. thank you. and good morning. i'm glad to be here. and i'm glad that there are so many secondary school teachers in the audience.

you know, my career path was when i went off to graduate school, was to teach high school history. and i would have done that, except that the day i came home from classes, opened up a letter from general hershey that began "greetings," and the next thing i knew, i was in uniform for two years. and while i never got to see vietnam, i was categorized as a vietnam-era veteran, which entitled me to the -- get the gi bill of rights, which i then took to go back to graduate school to get my phd in history and my career took a very different turn. but i have ever since 1974, been writing history textbooks on the secondary school level. and i've always felt that the training i had as a teacher, and i did do some school experiences, has always helped me in terms of trying to explain history in a way that teachers can then explain history to their students. and so i'm very pleased to be here speaking to this audience. and i'm also very pleased to be

in kentucky, speaking about the u.s. senate and in particular with its connection to henry clay. you cannot walk through the u.s. capitol building more than about 20 feet without running into henry clay. he's there in marble or in bronze or in oil paintings. there are busts of him, there are ceiling paintings of him. he's quite everywhere. in both the house and the senate, where he was a leader in both bodies. and we do identify henry clay with the u.s. senate, but i'd like to begin by telling you about henry clay's very first terms in the senate. he was elected as a senator first in 1806. of he was 29 years old. interestingly enough, our vice president was also elected when he was 29 years old. but he was 29 years old, and in a week or so. he turned 30 before he was sworn in as senator. henry clay was actually a little bit further beyond that. he served while he was 29. the constitution does require you to be 30, but he always said, well, that's between me and my constituency. and so -- and he never let

technicalities get in the way. when he got to washington, however, he found that the senate was a really not an appealing place for him. he was a very ambitious young man, and the truth was, the senate was too quiet. it operated very much in the shadow of the house of representatives in those days, and, in fact, the house of representatives, when henry clay came to the senate, was operating in a room on the second floor of the capitol that is today the office of senator mcconnell. so senator mcconnell has a room that would house once the entire house of representatives. the house was a lot smaller in those days. but the house was the dynamic engine of the federal government. it was the place everybody was watching, and, in fact, that was where the press went to pay attention to what was going on. the senate was so far in the background, that for its first six years, the senate met entirely in secret session. it had no public gallery, it kept the doors closed. it didn't see any reason to let the public in. the senators were going to be legislated by state

legislatures. they felt if they had a gallery, they might speak to the gallery, rather than to each other. and they could work as sort of a my he is, quiet advisory council to the president. ask that was phone. of course, the newspapers really houmded them, saying this is a democracy and the people have a right to know what their legislators are doing. the house, where everyone was going to run for re-election in two years, they opened their doors on -- immediately. so they wanted everyone to see what they were doing. and, you know, the press covered the house. and not the senate. and finally, and when the senate opened the doors, and let the press in, the press found the senate's proceedings so boring, that they immediately went back over to the house of representatives. it was not the exciting place that the house would become. so henry clay served in the senate briefly from 1806 to 1807 and again from 1810 to 1811. but as his recent biographies said, clay concluded he did not much like the senate.

it was too stayed and too quaint for his ambitions and he decided instead to run for the house of representatives. which is interesting. today, of course, half of the u.s. senate is made up of people who used to serve in the house of representatives. there are no former senators serving currently in the house of representatives. but in those days, a senator would leave deliberately to run for the house of representatives. and he wrote a letter to james monroe in 1810, explaining this. he said, accustomed to the popular branch of the legislature and preferring the turbulence, if i may be allowed that term, of a numerous body to the solemn stillness of the senate chamber, it was a mere matter of taste that led me, perhaps injudiciously, to change my station. this was just about the same time that a representative from new york was -- had gotten elected to the senate, and he wrote a letter home to his wife, and he said, "hence forth, you will not read of me in the gazettes, because they don't cover the senate." but then he added, "nor have the

senators near so much hard work and drudgery to perform." so the senate was a quiet place, but also didn't get much publicity. clearly, that was describing a u.s. senate that is very different from the senate that we think of today. the reason why so many members of the house run for the senate is that you get more national attention as a senator, usually. and especially those senators who are thinking about running for president, the senate has always been a much better launching pad for their further careers. and certainly as a senator, you get to speak on pretty much every issue. house members tend to be specialists on the issues their committees deal with. senators are expected to be generalis generalists. house members are sort of limited to their committee work where they can file amendments. senators can usually file amendments on pretty much anything, and get involved in any particular issue. and today, the u.s. senate is probably the most powerful upper house, although the house and senate don't refer to each other as the upper and lower house. they refer to each other as the

other body. but in the usual parliamentary sense, the upper house is the house of lords. and in almost every western democracy, which is most of them are parliamentary systems, the prime minister is in the house of commons. and it's the former prime minister who is in the house of lords. and that's where former politicians go to read the newspaper, essentially. the upper house usually do not have the kinds of powers that the house of commons have. we were at a history conference in prague last year, and the senate in prague has a very unusual function in that when the house in prague passes a law, it goes to the senate, and the senate has 30 days to either vote for it or vote against it. and if they -- the senate doesn't act, it goes back to the house, which can pass it again, and it becomes law without the u.s. senate -- without the check senate's approval. can you imagine that in the u.s. senate?

in the last congress, the house of representatives passed some 400 bills that did not pass the united states senate. so the u.s. senate is a extremely powerful body. and it's -- it's unique in the world, as a result. so i think it would be fair to ask of at this point, what did the founders of the republic expect the senate to be? and would they recognize the modern u.s. senate? to answer this question, we have to go back to the source, which is the constitutional convention. there was a huge debate between the states, the large states and the small states, james madison, who was the principal author of the first draft of the constitution, came from virginia, which was a large state, the largest in terms of population. he thought it only right that both houses of the new congress should be apportioneded according to population. the small states said absolutely not. they wouldn't join any union in which they were not equal. they came to this impasse.

fortunately, it was the 4th of july, there was a parade, fireworks, so they adjourned and while they adjourned, a committee tried to figure out how to get over this impasse, and the committee did what people do when they have two very strong positions. they split the difference. and they said, okay, we have two houses. the house will be apportioned by population, and the senate -- every state will be equal. you all know that. this is poly sci 101. but think about the consequences for the legislative bodies. we now have a 435 members of the house of representatives, a majority of them represent the majority of the population the united states. the state of california has 35 million people, and 53 representatives. that's the largest state delegation that's ever been sent to congress. not that far from california is the state of wyoming, it's a beautiful state. it's a lovely state. i visited many times. and you can drive for hours across wyoming without ever seeing another human being. there are about 500,000 people living in wyoming. they say it's a state