legalization is somewhere in between. >> i'm going to go to another reading. we can come back to this. one of readings we had was bronson. he talks about the idea of what true progress is and the only legitimate justification for war against southern independence. i think that he also suggests that the founders build something better than they knew. that's a direct quote. build something better than they even now. for bronson, i think the war is only justified insofar as it seeks to sustain ethno ideology of the nation. if that ideology is not sustained, he thinks war is justifiable. that's something i want you to take away from this. he also believes a constitutional government is

essential to preserving a society. but he believes -- bronson wants to maintain continuity with the organizing principles of the revolution and that's, in some ways, how he actually justifies the southern move from independence. he goings-on to say that the founders drew -- principles that are inherited through the enlightenment philosophers but that those principles, here's the key, are stronger than the philosophers or even the founders recognized. the anglo-american legal and political traditions communicate those political and social principles that are more compelling than even the founders recognized. he goes on -- he insists that the war against southern independence was just as much a war against northern democracy as it is against southern aristo crassy. i wanted you to take that away from reading and see how it fits

into what the tocqueville sees. i think it does fit in quite well. let's take a question on anything at this point. i wanted to get context. i saw you had your hand up again. >> mr. barone mentioned medicare. it reminded me of earlier this week "the new york times" had an expose on ron paul and his early career when he first opened up his medical practice or he refused to participate in medicare or medicaid. a lot of people, of course, you don't want to treat poor people. he treated anyone, but those people who could not pay, he accepted vegetables, a dozen eggs. i think that speaks a lot towards our ability as individuals to make our own contracts and the ability of us to take care of each other. we don't need these centralized programs like medicare and medicaid. i think when we have an

abundance of them, you spoke of america's prevalence of charity and giving to things like that. we hold an extreme capacity to take care of each other on an individual smaller community basis rather than big centralized government programs. i think -- >> one of the arguments my father was making around the family dinner table in the late '50s. early '60s. >> good arguments, though. >> my father is a physician and a surgeon. his father had been a doctor. he was a family of sicilian immigrants and unusually, they sent him to college and medical school, sort of like jewish immigrants than italian immigrants. he became a doctor and moved to detroit, which was the great growing dynamic city. fastest growing major metro except for los angeles, number two to l.a. it was bigger then. yeah. they didn't charge -- he

developed a fine sense of which patients were free-loading and said they couldn't afford it but could and which ones tried to pay you and knew they couldn't afford it. you tried to settle it. i saw people at his office, his office hours on tuesday and thursday nights. they would pay for the office call and the woman would get out her wallet out of her purse and take out four dollar bills and get out the change purse and put the last dollar on there out of change. it was $5 for an office call. $300 for an appendectomy in the 1950s. that was a free market system. people provided for that. you just ate the cost of that. sometimes people came out badly. my grandfather barone lost a house that he couldn't keep the mortgage up on in the 1930s. couldn't keep up the mortgage payment of $100 a month. a doctor. well, there was mass

unemployment. people couldn't pay him. they would bring in cookies or a chicken or something. i mean, that was how you got paid. some olive oil or -- i don't know what they made. tomato sauce. they would bring you, you would do what you can. a lot of his patients were italian. but you know, in some ways the medical profession -- that's not today's medical profession. you can't just wish that situation into existence and you can also imagine that there were situations that were a lot of people weren't getting care that you probably think should have. if you were all knowing, you would want to have get care. you know, not all doctors were going to do this and so forth and so on. increasingly people who entered the medical profession, mds do not go to become entrepreneurs with their own offices. they're becoming part of larger organizations, signing up on hospital staffs doing this or that. it may be this is also the result of in part half of the graduates are women who are

somewhat -- tend to be -- i could be attacked for saying things like this. but i think it's empirically true who are more likely to want to have stated definite hours rather than office hours on tuesday and thursday nights. oh, and also be on call 24 hours a day for your patients who are really sick and in the hospital. and you have e.r. duty. my dad left christmas day parties to go to the emergency room and sew people up. not everybody wants that kind of life. people have good reason for not wanting to do so. that's time away from your family. we're not going to retrieve that perhaps golden era of medicine ever again. we do -- we're facing in this election some what may be very serious questions and consequences may flow depending

on how the voters vote, whether or not this law is passed in 2010 is going to go into effect or how it will go into effect. and we also face the interesting question, was talking about a class this morning of the constitutionality of this law. it's been more than 70 years. >> it covers everything. >> that's what i was taught in law school. in law school we were talked wicker filburn the case, he can't produce oats for his own cows with -- unless the government says he can. that was in 1941 decision. you know, so wicker v. filburn is maybe dead. we have for the first time in 70 years, the supreme court giving consideration and indeed devoting highly unusual 5.5 hours of oral argument to a piece of economic legislation. i think however the court rules, the question of constitutionality of many pieces of legislation will become a lively political and perhaps

legal issue, which has not been the case for the last 70 years. that's a difference. it's a difference that gets us more towards -- that senses at least a little bit in a decentralizing situation as far as these government apparatuses go. because to the extent that's an issue, it may inhibit people from even proposing some forms of centralization which they might otherwise in wicker v. filburn atmosphere might have done. >> have a follow-up in. >> just to tag on to that. why is everything becoming a grandiose constitutional question now? >> it's grandiose because it's -- well, it's a constitution we are expounding as chief justice john marshall wrote. because it's an interesting question. because you have this -- in this case, the novelty, you got two interesting constitutional

questions here at least. a novelty of a mandate to buy a commercial product. we've never had a court rule that congress can require that. they've never done it before. i mean, everybody has searched the precedence. the people want this to be upheld, surely it would have come forward about a precedent that they could have found anything ingenuously cited as precedent they haven't done so. we can be sure they've tried. it's not there. so it's a novel question. we have a constitution of limited powers. tocqueville has some chapters on the constitution which i confess i did not review for this meeting. but the idea of limited government and subsidiary is written into the constitution to at least some extent. now a couple of the issues we were discussing in relation to centralization are issues that do look like they're national in scope. who serves in the military in

time of war? war at time in which by the way, 400,000 people in the military died. okay? you've got names on your plaques here at the citadel and it's a pretty big one for world war ii. if you were here during world war ii, you knew lots of those people who died. the question of immigration, who gets within our boundaries. there's no rule of international law or national law, we don't have any -- except diplomats under rules of international law. even then, we don't have to recognize the country and declare them persona non grata. nobody has a right to come in who isn't a citizen. we prudently and intelligently let people come in as doing business as immigrants. as a lot of things. we'd be fools not to. we don't have to. we don't have a constitutional responsibility. that's where the powers of the federal government are the greatest. arguably, there's a need for uniformity or you can make the argument you need uniformity and

so forth when you start getting into medical care policies and so forth. why not have more decentralization and also not just give states -- insurance companies and monopolies within states, but let it go across state lines to purchase policies across state lines. there's a strong argument for that. although it's an argument that says we're going to undermine state and local autonomy. you see. the people of new york want you to pay for podiatry and for psychological counseling about whatever else. neurotic manhattan people. >> dog. >> the dog psychology. you got to pay for that and have it as part of your policy. doggie analysis. you know, somebody was up to albany and figured a way to make money on that. we know how those things get into laws. somebody demands it. it is a local decision.

one of the things i think tocqueville would say is when you have local decisions, some of them are going to be stupid. they're not all going to be smart. some will be real dumb. >> some will be smart. >> and the sum total is going do things. they have to find ways to improve things better than you can. the french had a system of computer system called the mini tell in the 1980s and it was going to take over everything and so forth. that thing you got there is not a mini tele. it wasn't invented by central authority. >> one of the readings was king numbers by john randolph. i think if you go back over that, you'll see how much he takes from tocqueville or how similar. in "king number," he refers to the bear majority and how he's horrified at the notion that precedent, tradition and law can be overturned by a mere majority

appealing to an abstract principle. though that principle is not one that has been set down in tradition. consider -- he looks at stability and predictable in matters of economic exchange and social order. he fears that an impulse of an egalitarian plebocite might usher in the unrest and horror of the french revolution. in short, adding on to what de tocqueville does. the pursuit of equality and widespread democracy rather than rerepublicanism will destroy american tradition of oral liberty. randolph old republicanism reinforces the notion that the american founding was a revolution not made but averted. that goes back to what speaker gingrich said last week. his work also provides a bridge between jefferson and calhoun. i just wanted to make sure that

-- i hope you'll go back and re-read that given the brilliant lecture by mr. barone. i think it will make a lot more sense now. any other -- let's take another one or two questions. cadet slater? >> you were talking about how the society and the religious tradition, really important in maintaining freedom and i guess keeping society together at a local level a lot better. now, i think that played a pivotal role in the peace process right after the civil war. because those local groups could really keep everything together, keep social cohesion. but a lot of times when we're looking at other civil wars that are threatening to relapse back into conflict, the peace process is really just kind of at that macro level. let's throw peacekeepers in

there. do you think it should be encouraged that these local civil societies and local village communities should be really integrated into that peace process? >> that sound like a really smart question. i'm tempted to start off by asking with malice -- with charity towards all. lincoln was addressing the federal government in that. but he was certainly setting a tone after. the most terrifying passage in american oratory that all the bloodshed shall be paid for. it's fair and just altogether. whoa. and then he gets right into that. i would recommend in that connection a book that i've read, i can't remember the title of it. the author is drew faust, who is currently the president of harvard university. and she has a southern background and she read a book about the remembrances after the civil war. on both north and south. the memorials. the amount of people killed. i refer to 400,000 in world war

ii. 600,000 in civil war. in a nation of 38 million, okay? what is that for -- what's the equivalent of that in the proportionate of today? it's 4,800,000 people dead. that's a lot. you know. you go to any little southern town and courthouse town, any new england town and so forth and you look at the plaque and numbers of people and look up the census numbers, 1860's numbers for that community and you get an idea of the sort of thing. but as i say, i forget -- i think the word remembrance or something is in the name. it's something you can easily find. it's a book that addresses this in a very intelligent way. since i have developed an anti-harvard prejudice after going there, i have to say that i thought she seems to be a very thorough scholar and a person that writes with great intelligence, sympathy for people in all these situations.

>> we have time for one last question. >> gentlemen? >> mr. lacey. go ahead. >> mine wasn't so much a specific question as just i was curious more on your thoughts with the -- when you brought up education earlier and you spoke about timid and industrious animals-type thing. i thought about, i heard about education in some other nations that we're trying to compete with, with our education system and perhaps trying to emulate them even though those systems seem to be along the same lines of promoting -- >> please read that -- [ inaudible ] we'll have a couple of chapters on that. please continue, mr. lacey. >> so just to get more of your thoughts on that.

along with -- once again, we were talking about de tocqueville and he was talking about these aren't these bonds necessarily but where these bonds come from. i would say that in america, schools provide a lot of those bonds. like a lot of people associate their alma mater more than hardly any other organization. just to get more of your thoughts on education. >> okay. well, the education. a couple things. number one, my thoughts that i expressed here are sort of few things that i -- a book that i wrote published in 2005. it's portions of american life where you have competition, and soft america is where you don't. one of my basic thesis is most americans age 6 to 18 lived in soft america. progressive public schools and 1830 lived in hard america in places like the citadel and

selective colleges of all kinds in the military and private sector endeavors of various ways. that -- why do we have incompetent 18-year-olds and competent 30-year-olds. we don't have the most competent 18-year-olds or so i was asserting. so i was trying to answer that. there's an exception to that period after sputnik. i was a beneficiary of this. we suddenly decided that we've got to have advanced placement course,s and higher ed courses in a lot of public schools, at least where you had affluent or high iq kids in large numbers. the private school i went to three years ahead of mitt romney, we certainly had this. we had very smart kids. i thought they were a bunch of jerks, but it turned out they are actually smart people. you see people in their adolescence, that's their worst. anyway, they were -- so that was it. school ties, yeah, some of the voluntary associations we're talking about, a lot is nurtured by football teams and things. which i think at some level, you think say it's just kind of

silly. why do i care whether my sister or brother-in-law care whether the university of michigan beats michigan state. it's all the more important to them because they live in lansing. and still have their u of m sticker on their car. but hey, it's a positive thing. it's helped to build, you know, an important academic institution of some distinction. so we have all these different things working together and you have so many worthy institutions that are worthy in one way or another or many ways that it's helpful. the french system, by contrast, probably produces more excellence. they had a period where all their presidents and prime ministers had gone to this one school. happened to walk by it one time, one of their installations in paris. they've got an efficient parking garage in the basement of this historic building in the left bank of paris. and these people are very confident they're going to run the country.

you know, you get this -- >> they do. >> well, they do. they do. they run the biggest private firms, the government. they run it. centrally from paris. we do. and britain, you still have an awful lot concentration of oxford and cambridge. i mean, the current prime minister, david cameron, is eaton and christ church. he's one of 17 prime ministers that went to eaton, the same private school. these people basically -- they identify each other by saying to somebody they see, oh, were you at school? it's understood the only one to possibly be talking about is eaton. and apparently it's academically a tough and rigorous school and david cameron did well and the christ church and this and that and so forth and the people that run "the economist" are from

model college, oxford. little mafias. we have many, many mafias in this country with lots of smart and talented people in lots and lots of them. one of our great strengths. if you get a leader -- you know, we have had a president who went to harvard law school, the previous president went to harvard business school and the leading republican candidate went to lewiston law school and bill clinton went to georgetown and nowhere. >> and then -- >> law school. newt gingrich came from a dysfunctional family background and attended emory and tulane which, again, were, you know -- they don't hold the position in our society that oxford and cambridge did and nobody would mistake them for that. and yet, they both ascended to the stop of the political heap and showed in part through a part of genuine intellect and skill in the 1990s and against

the odds. so, there's plenty of room for achievement here. it's not entirely random. but it's -- we're not as centralized as britain and france are that way. and that's probably a good thing. >> well, the insights you have given us are invaluable and i'm sure will live with us forever and the ka dets forever, as well. i can't thank you enough. it's been outstanding. i hope you'll come back again sometime and talk to us. you're always welcome an i hope you found it enjoyable. being here at the citadel. thank you. >> thank you. >> every time i see mitt romney he says, oh, cranbrook. next week on "lex which you

ares in history" harvard university professor john stauffer discusses african-americans and the role in fighting the civil war. join us each saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern and sundays at 1:00 p.m. for classroom lectures from across the country on different topics and eras of american history. lectures in history are also available as podcasts. visit our website at c-span.org/history/podcasts. or down load them from itunes. >> each week american history tv's "american artifacts" takes viewers behind the scenes at historic sites. the united states treasury building in washington, d.c. was constructed between 1836 and 1869 and is located beside the white house at 1500 pennsylvania avenue. american history tv visited the

treasury building to learn about a long-term restoration project begun in 1986. >> welcome to the office of the secretary of the treasury. this is tim geithner's office. and this became the office of the secretary in 1910. and as we've seen, the office of the secretary has progressively moved around the building, as the treasury building has become modernized. and in 1910, what happened was a major renovation was done of the treasury building. and at that time, new systems were put in to the building. and it was deemed that the corner office and we're now at sort of a -- sort of the corner of the building, with a very nice view of the washington monument, the department of

commerce, that this corner office very well-lit office would become the office of the secretary of the treasury. with the secretary's office immediately across the hall, this is the secretary's large conference room. and this particular space was created under secretary james baker. baker wanted a larger conference room for his staff meetings. and in 1986, with the founding of my office, the office of the curator, we took the charge of creating for secretary baker a small -- a large conference room and a secretary's reception room. and both of these sort of spaces, these spaces are continued to be used today for the intended functions. the room also has portraits of our founding father george washington, our particular portrait has been in the

treasury collection. we don't know where it came from. it's been here for some time. and is after the gilbert stewart portrait of washington. the portrait on the other side is a portrait taken from life of abraham lincoln. lincoln, of course, being a figure who has fit prominently in to treasury's history, lincoln coming the building and chase's office to have conversations with secretary chase concerning the financing o of the civil war, the union forces out civil war. the portrait was painted of life of lincoln and subsequently a beard was added to the portrait when lincoln developed the -- sort of when we developed the very iconic image of president lincoln with the beard. someone felt the need to add a beard to the portrait and have a

likeness of a younger with older lincoln beard. both of those portraits hung in the room when we had our so-called economic meltdown a few years ago. and they figure in secretary paulson's book of that particular sort of episode, the two portraits, one of washington and one of lincoln hanging in this room where the secretary had regular meetings with his staff. regarding the american economy. which is what treasury does best. >> you can view more "american artifacts" programs online at c-span video.org. enter american artifacts in the search box. watergate was not a caper.

it was about a fundamental attempt by the president of the united states to misuse and abuse the constitution, obstruct justice and more than anything to try and undermine the very electoral process. >> it's been 40 years since the watergate break-in. >> if you really looked at it, they rigged or tampered with everyone's vote by saying this was not just something done to have fun or -- it was not just dirty tricks. it was a strategic plan aimed at getting the weakest nominee and they did it. >> watch more from the two reporters who broke the watergate story online at the c-span video library. next, an oral history interview that provides a new look in to the nixon