presidents and first ladies. to watch any of our programs or check our schedule, visit www.c-span.org/history. you are watching american history tv all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. ,> next on american history tv we will hear about senator sam ervin's time as chair of the senate watergate to midi from rufus edmisten and his grandson judge sam ervin iv. they recall his character and how the self-proclaimed country lawyer relied on his knowledge of the law and personal convictions to guide the committee. this event was hosted by the north carolina museum of history. it is about an hour. >> good afternoon. . my name is michael scott. i do a lot of programming at the museum of history. we have dr. karl campbell,

sam j. of the book " ervin, last of the founding fathers." he will be guiding the ship through the waters of watergate. in the center, we have former state attorney general and no street or to most people here, nous edmisten -- and stranger to most people here, rufus edmisten. [applause] closest to me, i hope no stranger to people around here or maybe not, he is a judge. judge sam ervin iv. [applause] all right. thank you, guys. i will let them take it away. >> good afternoon. it has been 40 years and a few hours since richard nixon resigned from the presidency. [laughter] [applause]

wow. [laughter] for those of us of a certain age, we remember the trauma of watergate and perhaps for decades later, we are ready to put the scandal in a greater historical context. whothose of you younger don't remember of watergate, perhaps you're wondering why every scandal since 1974 has to end with the word "gate." example, new jersey "bridge gate." this anniversary of watergate has created the usual controversies in the press and on the bookcases. there are a lot of new twists and turns just in the last three or four days. there has been three new books published on watergate. i want to mention them quickly. taking us back further in watergate, can use'-- ken

shadows"ook "chasing is based on the tapes and suggests watergate goes back to 1968 and to nixon's attempt to prolong the vietnam war for his own personal political gain. taking watergate further into the future, reprocessed in his , the"the invisible bridge fall of nixon and the rise of reagan has gotten a lot of unfair and, somewhat partisan. some of it serious charges about his scholarship. then there is the nixon defense on sale in the bookstore out there, it is an examination of the tapes, including thousands of hours not previously heard. it is by a fellow named john dean, yes, that john dean. guess what, nixon is still guilty.

according to those tapes, he looks worse than he did even 40 years ago. in north carolina, we have long known the best way to understand the watergate scandal was from the perspective of senator sam ervin. --chaired the watergate senate watergate hearings in 1973 and brought some good old-fashioned tar heel common sense to the craziness in washington. after the urban hearings -- ervin hearings, nixon's complicity in watergate was as say, "aservin like to clear as the noon day sun in a cloudless sky." after a brief interview -- overview of sam ervin's life, i promise it will be brief, one-page. sam ervin was born in north carolina in 1896.

he called that little town that lies in the shadows of the blue ridge mountains his home until his death in 1985. distinction in world war i. he attended the university of north carolina at chapel hill and later harvard university law school, which he went through backwards, but that is a story for later. he practiced law in morganton and became a traveling superior court justice and later an associate member of the north carolina supreme court. he probably would have been happy serving on that court for the rest of his life. but in may of 1954, just six days before the supreme court announced its decision in the our senator died suddenly sitting at his desk in the senate office building. at this critical juncture in north carolina and american governorthe state's appointed sam ervin to the

united states senate. he arrived just in time to lead the south's opposition to the brown decision. he arrived just in time to help bring down senator joe mccarthy. for the next 20 years, from 1954 until 1974, irvine served as north carolina's senior senator. following the pattern he established in the first year, he remained a steadfast opponent of civil rights, but he became the senate's leading champion of civil liberties. the most americans remember sam , bibles the affable quoting, old country lawyer who chaired the senate hearings in 1973. his stories from down-home in north carolina it was reciting from memory passages ranging from shakespeare to aesop's fables and especially his defense of constitutional

government in dear him to a disenchanted public suffering through a long national crisis. when ervin began in the summer of 1973 with the hearings, the cloud hung over richard nixon. but few expected the extent of the legalities or involvement of the president himself. by the end of the summer, a gallup poll reported nearly 90% of all americans had watched some part of those hearings. who received the third-largest mandate in the history of the united states when he won reelection in 1972, had the lowest public approval rating of any president in the preceding 20 years. as nixon's ratings fell, ervin's popularity skyrocketed. student and founder of the national sam ervin fan club explained, and i quote,

"watergate has given us a person we believe in. he says he's just an old country lawyer. but when he talks about the constitution, he makes you want to stand up and pledge allegiance. so we are here today to talk about senator sam and watergate. there will be time in the last 10 or 15 minutes for questions from the audience. let's begin with a question from rufus. in the spring of 1974, putting the hearings together, before the hearings began, what did watergate mean to you and what were you thinking you were going to find before you begin? -- began? >> i have to point out the museum of history has done a fantastic job with this exhibit. it won a national award. if you have not seen it before, i will give a tour. it will be directed toward my good looks and a few things like

that. [laughter] with us today is jeanne boyce, who was on the team that discovered the tapes, michael carpenter is right up there, who bozo.w has to be the over here is judge william creech, a longtime ervin aid and fabulous individual who will do my work on the constitutional rights subcommittee. welcome, judge. [applause] i want to point out jimmy is getting these jowls coming along very well. i will not refer to him as jimmy anymore today because he is judge ervin. i want you to know that. he may be a supreme court justice if all the phone -- the stars fall right. [applause] i was not supposed to do that. he knew i would do that. what was it like right before

watergate? i thought we were doing a rehearsal because i had been creech on thel constitutional rights subcommittee. we have been studying all these things. as you said in your book, judge ervin had a 10 year battle with richard nixon. frankly, he never trusted the man. my unique and wonderful position years, half his senate career, i tag along with him. i got to drive him. we have some fun stories if we have time i will tell you about in my book. later on. [laughter] i thought we were doing a rehearsal when all the watergate came up because everybody in the world in the senate, as the judge remembers, wanted to be on the watergate many -- committee. as it heated up, teddy kennedy wanted to be on it. they saw something coming. it took a different path. we sat for months holding boring hearings on executive religion,

-- privilege, these esoteric subjects that later became what watergate was all about because richard nixon could not keep his hands off anything he was not supposed to keep it off of. so i thought it was a rehearsal. i later saw the gravity of it, and we got in high gear. i went back and read all the things i have done during the years when i was chief counsel. jimmy, can you tell us about your grandfather's feelings as he was approaching this? what was his frame of reference? frame of reference was essentially what rufus just said. i think it is fair to say, he had concerns about president nixon for a long time. house in 1946 briefly and was friends with a representative from california. it did not agree with congressman voorhees about much. because congressman voorhees was

a fairly advanced liberal at that point. but he liked congressman voorhees and thought he was a person of integrity. he was very unhappy with the campaign president nixon ran against congressman voorhees in the 1946 election. it was an attack on congressman voorhees as a communist. when he got to washington, he had a series of concerns about resident nixon -- president nixon that i don't think ever abated. on the other hand, i think it was hard for him to come to the conclusion that president nixon had done some of the things we now know he did. he had a reverence for the office of the presidency i think a lot of folks had. it took a while for him to come to grips with the notion a president might have done some of the things he ultimately was found to have done. you have to remember i was 17

the summer of the hearings. i remember a conversation i had with him in may 1973. rufus may remember this. his brother, john, died. granddad came down for the funeral right before the hearing started. i was talking to him. he and i talked about a lot of things. i asked how bad is this really. i don't remember his exact words, but the gist of it was far more serious than he ever thought it was. point, he knew what john dean's book for going to say although he was not a rigorously -- liberty to say publicly. at that point, i think he knew what he was dealing with. >> often when we talk about watergate, it becomes a greek tragedy about richard nixon. it is about what nixon knew and when did he know it. i think from sam ervin's point of view, this was a larger issue. this was not just about richard nixon. but it was about what you are

referring to. on separationee of powers have been building a case against the imperial presidency for some time. i remember one of the first bills richard nixon passed was the district of columbia crime bill. in that bill, there were two kanye measures to fight the war measures-- draconian to fight the war on drugs. no knock police injury -- entry. >> i saw the speech he gave against the district of columbia crime bill in 71 -- 1971. maybe 1970. he gave a four-hour speech against that bill almost from memory starting with nothing but a stack of books on his desk on the senate floor. he was outraged by it because it did a number of things he thought were completely antithetical to the constitution as he understood it.

bail generally is you cannot be denied bail in a noncapital case. this statute allowed judges to deprive people of release on bail based on the finding they were dangerous. largeow you can get disputes in the psychological community about whether you can predict that. he was probably even more outraged by the no knock search provision which typically in common law, you had to announce yourself if you were an officer getting ready to make a search. this bill allowed them to execute a search warrant recently kicking the door without announcing it, on the theory that if you did not do destroy the would contraband on the premises to be searched. he thought that was an outrageous infringement on civil liberties of the citizens of the country and fought it almost single-handedly. he managed in the in today fair

number of his colleagues to vote against it, but not enough to defeat it. >> i think this is an important point you made earlier. watergate, people immediately think of the break in. was j anthony lukas who once said watergate was like a flaw in the marble that ran through the entire edifice and eventually broke down the structure of the administration. theseys on the committee, issues were long before the break-in that were part of the fight between congress and the imperial presidency. >> of course. can you imagine the president who endorses the plumbers group reaching into the psychiatrist's office because he was mad because he had leaked papers? as john dean said the other night, some of you were there because i see you again, they were running the place like a mafia down there. that is a strong word.

i said it. john dean said it. the mafia was a lot cleaner than they were. they were dummies. they did some of the dumbest things in the world. for the life of me, i cannot understand how someone as savvy as nixon was could do something -- some of the stupid things. my theory has always been that we in public office, i ran 11 times. i never had in my office thing worth a dime. there.as nothing in i would pay somebody to break in and clean it up it was so bad. they were stupid. if president nixon had surrounded himself with a few people who had as much love for city council or county commission, they would never have dreamed of doing the stupid stuff they they did. this waybeen in on before watergate.

we had all kinds of things, having the military spy on civilians. that is something i saw him get matter about than anything in the world. we were driving down the road one day way before watergate. he had this old chrysler. i felt like a ship of fools going down the road weaving back-and-forth as i drove that thing. he never changed cars while i was with him. he changed oil occasionally. but not cars. he said, you know, rufus, richard nixon is afraid of freedom. i always kept that in my mind. he said richard nixon is afraid of freedom. that characterized the maniacal activities at the white house before karl and during watergate. the whole thing about it is, for mcgovern, youor could have taken anybody and beaten the man.

>> where did he when? >> orange county. >> and northampton. all 100 ofeen in them about 20 times. to answer your question, it is like a windshield. it just kept going and going, that crack, until john dean said the famous thing. he asked the president, is to president, you know there is a cancer in the presidency. you have seen it. that did not take with nixon if you recall. he ignored it. said, he said those folks did not want to face reality down there. i have been on a couple of radio programs lately. somebody said we ought to impeach obama. i said wait a minute. obama has sat at the table at the white house, the desk in the oval office, and

said how much will it take to pay them off? will $1 million do it? break in that place. there's a bit of difference, a tiny bit of difference. the caller into the last show said, i don't care. [indiscernible] >> it is interesting. if you have been following the press on some of the books i mentioned earlier how partisan the coverage remains and how many people are still bringing up the argument this was a partisan attack on richard nixon. the other day i saw somebody who said the only thing nixon did wrong was being a republican because the democrats had gotten away with that kind of thing for years. true. there has been a long context of taping and executive power. these are important questions. what richard nixon did was in such a different level than any president before or after. i think history increasingly is finding evidence of that.

i wonder if we could back up for a minute and talk about how irv in -- ervin got this. of all the senators, why would they pick senator sam ervin? he was fairly well known in north carolina but not a national person. why sam ervin to have this thing? >> i don't talk to the people who made the decision. if you read the statements granddad made over the years, he was asked, the chairman of the backgroundgainst the rufus has talked about, that everyone knew many of these issues, particularly the issue of executive privilege because everybody knew that was going to be a big bone of contention with any congressional attempt to investigate watergate, and granddad had done a lot of work on it. at that time, he was 78 years old. he had no further ambitions.

he did not run for reelection the next year. so he could not be accused of trying to politicize things for his own benefit. if you look at his voting record, he cannot be categorized as a partisan in the sense he always lined up with the opposition to nixon on substantive issues were in favor of him substantively. he tended to support the president on some things and not others. lastly, he had more judicial experience than anyone else in the senate. he spent about seven years as a state trial court judge and another six years as a state supreme court justice. before he was in the senate, he practiced law. so he had more of a judicial past. most people referred to him as judge rather than senator most of the time. >> i referred to him as god.

[laughter] given granddad's calvinism, i am not sure what he would have thought of that. [laughter] , he wouldesbyterian - have thought it was predestined. [laughter] >> he told me about world war i, i was predestined to get behind that tree and missed that bullet. [laughter] >> or his other version of that was if you -- he told somebody one time when they were arguing predestination with him that if you denied the validity of predestination, you had to assume when something happened god was just as surprised as everybody else. [laughter] >> sam ervin was a good scotch irish presbyterian who would always give the good scotch irish prayer. dear lord, help me from being wrong because as you know, i shall never admit i am wrong

rather or not i was. [laughter] prayer heer favorite liked to use occasionally was what he said was the lawyer's prayer. lawyer was called to recant meeting many years ago to give the opening prayer. he was not used to praying in public. the lawyer said the first thing that came to his head which was in essence, lord, stir up much strife lest by servant parish -- perish. [laughter] >> that is the young lawyer's prayer he said. back to howes us conservative sam ervin was as a politician. a lot of people don't remember when school prayer was stopped in the supreme court, sam ervin was one of the first people to

denounce the removing of prayer from the public's published -- public schools. he used that quote about the lawyer. he went to lunch. there it is surprise was most of the supreme court. he told them i was just down in morganton. i talked to an elementary school teacher. she said she walked into her class and there were a bunch of little children in the corner. she said get off your knees, what are you doing? they said, we are shooting craps. [laughter] the teacher said good, i thought you were praying and i was going to have to make you stop. [laughter] but sam ervin after he read the material with the amendment to the constitution saying we needed to return prayer to school, sam ervin was ready to change his mind and was a champion of the separation of church and state. >> i was sitting on the floor. there is a wonderful old couch no longer there. i would sneak over to watch the great people.

senator ervin was making his pitch about this being very bad, it was going to violate the separation of church and state. he used the example of somebody in new york city with the buddhists in charge of government, the buddhist prayer, how would you like that? that resonated with people, shallow water baptists like me. he made such a reasoned argument. back in those days, occasionally someone would listen when the senator would come on the floor. one was senator wayne morse of oregon. after it was over, he came over. he said sam, i heard your speech, i've changed my mind and i'm not going to vote for that amendment. >> and it did not pass. >> i think that goes to one other thing. randy told me one time you should not be in public office unless you were prepared to lose an election if you stuck to your principles.

if you did not have sufficient principles that you were prepared to brave public opinion on occasion, you did not have enough backbone to hold public office. he clearly had that. he did not spend lots of time reading poll numbers. he truthfully made up his own mind and figured if the public did not like it, they have the right to defeat him when he ran for reelection. he was ok with that. i do remember in 1968 the last time he ran. rufus and i went around with him a little bit. rufus drove and they let me tag along. he usually finished his speeches by saying something to the effect of, you don't have to reelect me, but you need to understand if i am defeated, i am not staying in washington to be a lobbyist. i'm coming back to north carolina. so if you don't want me around, you need to reelect. [laughter] >> let me tell you what campaigning was like back then. this was 1968.

we still have the same old chrysler. you went to the county seat review went and saw the sheriff, the clerk of the court, he walked around the courthouse. that night in town, you would have a big rally. i remember he had radio ads. you remember this. people have voluntarily sent senator ervin contributions. he used to marvel at that. he did not write a letter saying i want these. , i was upas over there one saturday. he said i need you to help me stamps and letters. i got in and he was writing checks out meticulously giving back the portion of what he did not spend of contributions whether they were $100 or $500 and a little note to everybody saying i did not use this, i'm going to give it back to you. the percentage, i do not know. >> i remember he was given rebated spent $20,000,

as much of the remaining $10,000 he could find and give the rest of the local hospital. i was not sure i believed that story until a week ago when i ran into somebody who claimed to have gotten one of those checks. [laughter] >> in my research, i have seen the letters. >> would you give it back? would you give money back? [laughter] brother who ran for reelection to the supreme court three years ago did when he did not have opposition. but i believe i would spend it if i had a campaign to win. >> let's talk about morganton. sam ervin used to say he was just a country lawyer, but it was true. he was just a country lawyer. he practiced law. i think that had a profound impact on his style and personality, his use of humor. i wonder if you could talk about morganton and country law during -- lawyering.

>> i live there and came down from morganton this morning and will go back this afternoon. they don't let us live anywhere else, apparently. [laughter] morganton is a small town at the foot of the mountains in western north carolina. if you read historical discussions of the self, you become more aware of the fact the south is not one monolithic place could there are real regional differences within the south. as a small town, morganton is a place where at the time he was growing up, you knew everybody, everybody knew you. it was a place that seems as best as i can tell and remains this way a very intellectual a stick -- individualistic kind of place. his father was a self education lawyer who had come up from south carolina after the civil war for economic reasons. , you have gotch

to make something of yourself, very strong in for cisco on individual freedom. a lot of what granddad got came from the lessons he got from his lawyer -- father, my great-grandfather. growing up in a small town, you learn how to deal with people. you have to deal with everybody he grew up in an environment where there was not a lot of stratification in terms of your personal interactions. there were class and racial differences in the community. as a lawyer, he's was primarily a jury lawyer. almost all his arguments were made to 12 citizens of the county in the jury box. he had to learn how to cross examine witnesses. he had to learn how to appeal to different parts of the public. i think that have a lot to do with the style he developed. >> humor is a wonderful weapon we don't see used enough in

politics today. it human eyes is while it can also make its point -- it humanizes while it also can make its point. one of my favorite sam ervin stories about watergate was about the lawyers making the case about executive privilege. he said that reminds me of when i was a country lawyer in morganton. a woman came in from the mountains and said she needed legal advice. i gave her one hour. she got up to leave. i said that will be $5. she said, what for? he said, my legal advice. she said, i ain't going to take it? [laughter] hisout batting an eye, eyebrows would go up a couple of times, and he said, that is what we say to the president. we are not going to take your legal advice. point made brilliantly but humanly, which i thought was wonderful. >> i heard these stories over and over again and laughed harder every time. it is hard to believe.

i think my favorite was one time this woman came to him. she was about 90 years old. she said i want a divorce from my husband. her, how longd to have you been married to him? she said about 75 years. why after all those years would you want a divorce? it is this way. enough is enough. [laughter] that one. i was running for attorney general for the second time. i was going down in a parade. this woman ran up and said, what are you running for this time? i said attorney general. she said are you still a lawyer? i said yes. she said i will have you know i will not vote for no damn lawyer. said [indiscernible] i got her vote.

[laughter] it was an exercise in plagiarism. one time during the hearings, granddad was a harvard graduate. he did go backwards. he took the third your first and the first year first. i did not believe that story until i got to harvard and was able to verify it. at one point during the hearings after he made one of these, "i'm just a, -- country lawyer someone said he is also a harvard graduate. granddad said, thank goodness no one would ever know. [laughter] >> i like that one. which waswatergate such a serious matter, and it was one of the first truly televised scandals in american history, you had these blue-eyed

technocrats who talk in sound bites that knew exactly how long -- what they had to say. they were scripted and clear. kind of like a shakespearean humanyou have this character who was very shrewd at using these stories and that personality. a lot of people think ervin's role was educational. watergate was complicated. there were so many pieces and parts. ervin in that committee helped to educate the american people by using ervin as a vehicle to put it together. there were several moments that were turning points in those hearings. one was certainly the tapes. i wonder if you could recount from the inside what it was like when they found out this whole thing could be settled by simply getting the tapes and pushing the play button. how did that come about?

>> gene boyce was the deputy counsel for the watergate committee. [applause] boyce was the head of the team. before we put people on the stand, you see what they're going to say first because you don't like surprises. all of us thought alexander butterfield was a minor witness. we were out having a party. i often wished i had asked that question. asked if he could kick himself for not asking it himself. it took a clue from john dean's testimony where he said i felt like i was being taped. he talked about that a lot. you said i felt i was being taped. he said that at the book signing. gene and his crew picked up on it. it was not an accident.

the rumor keeps going around that this was an accident. gene and his crowd thought that out. he left. the gentleman asked the question. i remember you sent somebody to tell me about it, gene. i was at this party was senator ervin. i told him. he said don't tell that damn old wacker. he was a member of the committee, but we knew he was the biggest leak around crude that is how it came about. in that day, in that hearing room, it was very deliberative. fred thompson was given the privilege of asking the question because we did not want it coming from quote a partisan democrat. the press had better manners back then. there was no foolishness might -- like cellphones. there was one old telephone booth in the senate caucus room.

when alexander butterfield said that, a hush fell over the room. they did not all run out of there immediately like they do today. well, they would be on their cellphones. they listened to the rest of his testimony. then there was a scramble like a covey of quail being flushed. what did you do when you got news back in those days? you have to go find a telephone. where do you find a telephone if you're in the senate caucus room? you have to run to some senators office and beg for a telephone because you are not talking to your editor while this is going on. the whole process of how you report things has changed dramatically. showsene in the exhibit at one time or another, 90% of americans watched a little bit of working. you are correct about the drama.

the only thing it did not have was heavy sex. i'm not really up on that. >> if this were a censored conference that meshed conversation. -- if this were a censored conversation. >> everybody behaved better back then. in the senate room, this woman jumped up and said praise the lord, sam ervin is a saint. she would not shut up though. i told the policeman to take her out. she screamed all the way out. she kept quoting john 3:16. i don't know what happened to her. i have no idea. >> discharge of partisanship -- this charge of partisanship, 40 years later we still hear it. that sam ervin was out to get richard nixon. sam ervin did not perform this hearing as a judicial hearing should be, but instead was very partisan. reaction is the nixon

people sensed -- sent several operatives down to north carolina to see if they could get dirt on sam ervin. they talked to several republican elected officials who said not only is there no dirt, but i trust sam ervin as much as anyone in my own party and you are going to find nothing on sam ervin that is partisan or unfair. barry goldwater said the same thing. what do you say about this charge? that it was not judicial, it was partisan. >> i think you say two things about it. many people what tend to forget to some extent is the technical purpose of the committee. this was not just a fact-finding investigation in and of itself. all committees like that are created for the purpose of recommending amendments to federal law to deal with problems discovered and addressed in these kinds of hearings. ultimately, the whole watergate

issue came to the senate are merely as a campaign finance scandal. the ultimate output of the committee was a series of modifications to the federal election laws in 1974 that included the now defunct presidential public financing program and other things like that. it was not ever intended to be a jewish to -- judicial gathering because it was to develop a factual record from which to develop legislation. that aside, the reason i think you can have confidence the watergate investigation in the city committee -- senate committee and the next year in the house impeachment committee is that there were a number of members of the republican party who were prepared to break ranks because they did not like what they were seeing. you did not have what you see now in many instances where you have a seven-member committee, three republicans. but their decisions did not break down along party lines.

my understanding is granddad and howard baker, vice chairman, had an agreement they were not going to split on procedural issues, that they were going to work things out together. for example, the vote to send proof as to the white house for the subpoena -- with the subpoena was unanimous. senator baker did not act as a defender of nixon. certainly senator weichert did not. was not aor gurney nonstop partisan for the president. the impeachment hearings the next summer, there were a group of republicans who voted to impeach president nixon before the smoking gun tape came out. i am not sure you could have that kind of result now. we've gotten so politicized and partisan that people are almost afraid to exercise their own judgment in spite of the potential cost to themselves.

there were members of the republican party willing to stand up and do what they thought was correct. i think that is one of the legacies of that hearing. quietus on the theory this was some kind of partisan witchhunt. butler decide did to vote for impeachment? why did other members of the house vote that way? why did others act the way they did? >> senator ervin and baker made an agreement in the beginning. we are not going to do anything unless we agree on it. if you notice in this hearing, no subpoenas were issued. the vote to subpoena the president was unanimous. in my opinion, i'm not an historian, it is the only hearing that has worked. nothing since watergate has worked because you could not have two people like sam ervin and senator baker. they were like two peas in a pod.

speaking about to get the president, i have to tell you this one thing. after the tapes had been discovered, the committee was in senator ervin's office. that wee discussing want to give the president the chance to turn over the tapes. all of a sudden, senator ervin turns to me and says go get the president on the telephone. that was not like go in there and buy a pack of [indiscernible] [laughter] i got to the white house. edmisten,s is rufus deputy chief counsel of the watergate committee. at that time, if you saw this coming, you just about had a heart attack because we had subpoena power. if you lied to the committee, you would go to jail. she said hold on, i will be back with you. all the time nixon had been saying urban is out to get me. all the sudden, this was comes on. senator ervin, this is richard nixon.

i was so stunned at the president. president, hold on, the senator wants to get you. [laughter] added, " on the phone." [laughter] i walked back in there. i told that to the committee real quick. they rolled on the floor. you" has a good context with the committee. >> i was not there. as an historian when you read the documents alone in archives, you get the sense the actors in the drama new this was more important than your regular partisan game. this was about the presidency. this was about the constitution. this was about the nation. sam ervin and the other senators rose to the occasion. they realized there was something bigger on the line. we know no more about how people

think politically. there's a lot of neuroscience going on about it that i am not an expert on. we do know people that change people dos quickly, not get a fact and say that is compelling evidence and i will change my mind. instead, we have a framework and understand the world. the facts come out that framework. at first, we dismiss the messengers. the facts keep coming. eventually, there is a moment in which it builds up and you have to turn your framework to accept all this information. i think that is what these committees did. when you got to the saturday night massacre and people were fired, that seem to be the gestalt, the final reaction to the urging of mesh ervin hearings. i believe we could sit up and talk for another three or four hours. that we would like to get some questions from the audience --

but we would like to get some questions from the audience. we do have time to do that. >> before we do that, i want to share this book. this is karls book. i personally think it is the best book done on ervin. you need to get it. he leaves nothing unturned. i promise you he will never write a book on me because he is too truthful. [laughter] he said i am too truthful -- about that note. -- i have got that note. we have people with microphones and would love to accept her questions. >> say richard nixon did not resign and the impeachment anyway kept going on, way to predict how that might have turned out? >> there is no doubt. we know from statements of the senators themselves he would

have been impeached. he would have been found guilty. he would have been removed from office. there is a famous moment where barry goldwater went and spoke ish of republicans and said, to president, not only do you not have the votes -- you don't have my vote. that is why he resigned. because there was no way possible. that should remind us the evidence is overwhelming. this is not an open legal question. the president was clearly guilty of the obstruction of justice and many other crimes. >> the minority leader went down with barry goldwater and another senator. .hat convinced the president i don't have my senate minority leader with me, i am gone. a couple of days later, he said let's go. >> more questions? do we have a microphone that can come over here? i think we can settle all of

watergate in the next 10 minutes. yes, sir. >> rufus, i believe you were the one that had the in vehicle duty ble duty able -- envia of presenting --what is the legal term -- the subpoena to the president of the united states. would you tell us about that? >> what a day. >> there when the 10 minutes. [laughter] >> let me set a record. , maybe i was the project director of the watergate committee. i made things work. ,hen the senate committee voted i chose myself to do it. it was quite a day. i was loaded in the back of a police car. i looked like i was going to the federal penitentiary. we did not have sirens or lights. got down there, must have been 200 reporters.

we had alerted them we were coming with it. the air was thick in washington at that time. gene and michael will recall, it was thick. everyone knew you were headed to the president, for the constitutional crisis. i walked up to the executive office building. and aepped his counsel man who was a noted legal professor whose book i have used in law school. i did my bit about, on behalf of the senate, headed it to them. a smart-alecky thing. i have one of those blue constitutions in my back pocket. i whipped this out and said you might want one of these, too. [laughter] >> really? >> if that is not a smart alec, i don't know what is. more importantly was when the tapes were discovered. that was the first time a

subpoena had been served on any sitting president by a committee of the congress. "time" magazine said, rufus edmisten has a footnote in history. it is a small one by the way. >> but you're not done yet. another question perhaps. would you talk about how you were hired by senator others, how did you get the job? >> dumb luck. i was was growing up, intrigued by these folks who.. would come by and make speeches i would see senator ervin. i kept counting him. i said i want to work for you someday, senator ervin. washington in 1963 to law school at nighttime and taught the third grade for one year. i kept counting the senator's office and the senator about wanting a job.

a job came open on the subcommittee. -- theator said secretary said the senator will put you on bill creech's subcommittee. it was tenacity and not quitting. what a wonderful life i have had been around a man like sam ervin. can you believe it? actually, you are sitting right next to him. [laughter] >> we have been very kind today. anna --gear israel right there is raelana poteat. i want to thank her. marvelous job. [applause] it up at least another week so i can come back over here. >> ford pardoned nixon. good or bad idea? >> i will answer quick.

good idea. >> i will answer longer. bad idea. i think it would have been one of the greatest moments of american history for us to show the entire world that in america no one is above the law and no one is treated any different. i think the picture of a president behind bars would have been a wonderful and patriotic moment in our history. [applause] >> you have got the deciding vote. >> granddad at the time thought it was a bad idea. i don't think he changed his mind. if you did, i am not aware of it. i have always been torn on that issue. i may have been in the adjuster free -- judiciary too long to see all sides of everything. i think there is something to both positions. i think the ultimate question raised by watergate is, is a president subject to the law? if you go back and look at the position being taken in defense

of many of the things being done, it was if the president says it, it is legal period. that is antithetical to any notion of the constitutional government. if the president had been tried and convicted, as he probably would have been, and sentenced, i think that would have been as graphic a demonstration of the fact that nobody in this country is above the law. that is something we need to remind ourselves of fairly regularly. on the other hand, i think it would have been a traumatic experience for the country, which is probably why rufus gave the answer he gave. on balance, i am inclined to think it was a mistake to have pardoned him. but i understand the other side. what it at all sure think is right. >> gerald ford lost his presidency over it. i think it was an act of

courage. he knew if he did that he would never be reelected. i admire gerald ford. >> it was a very courageous act. there was no upside to it for president ford. from everything i have read solely because he thought this was a part of our history we needed to put in the past, and that we would not be able to do it if we continue down the road of having the president indicted. i can see that. i don't think i agree with it in the end, but it is a reasonable thing to think. >> we have put this in the past today. >> it is amazing. we are talking about a major historical event. too often people think, watergate, what a tragedy. when you hear the stories of personal carnage, a politician ofwhen you hear the stories personal courage, of politicians doing the right thing, i think watergate is a moment to be

proud of. they said the system work. i think a historian said the system barely worked. i think sam ervin would be reminding us vigilant's is the cost -- vigilance is the cost of liberty. new names and parties are just as relevant today as they were 40 years ago. do we have time for one more question? he is the gentleman with the microphone. >> [indiscernible] dean?t about john >> the other night you had a barbecue with john dean. besides the surprise mr. butterfield gave you 40 years ago, was there anything funny and surprising that john dean said to you over barbecue the other night? >> first of all, i called up john dean's office and said, would you like to go to supper? he said, what is supper?

i said when you grow up on the farm, that is dinner. i opened up some albums and there were these gorgeous pictures of this beautiful -- is beautiful, angelic wife. he said i'm still married to that woman. he said, can i have that? i said no, but you can take pictures of it. he was thrilled to death. we went over to the "raleigh times" and he got immersed in north carolina barbecue. the not going to lose governorship like i did over condemning barbecue. >> that for another time. [laughter] we have a request for a female question. [laughter] i am not sure what one of those is, but i will be glad to take a question right here. yes, ma'am. >> i think it is time for a question from a woman. thank you for your many years of

service not only to our country but to this state. my question is -- [applause] is, what was it about nixon that caused such fierce loyalty from a relatively educated staff, and particularly rosemary woods? >> they were all a little bit psychotic like he was. [laughter] i am serious. this man was a case study in psychosis. he was a weird man. i kid you not. he never got information except from haldeman and ehrlichman before john dean went in. he was a closeted man. that were loyal did not stay loyal long. if you notice, every single one bailed. it did not quite happen that way. >> i think we are coming to the

end of our time. i would like to thank you for being here today. that is thef us history news network says, history is not just the past, it is the present and the future, too. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> monday night, the economist reflects on the life of milton friedman and his contributions to the study of economics, especially his work to reestablish the american economy following world war ii. he also reflects on his personal relationship with friedman and the economist's influence on his own career. only on american history tv on c-span3. >>

general george washington bid farewell to his officers following the revolutionary war. >> fraun says tavern is at 54 lower manhattan. it was built in 1719 with the delancey family. it was built as a home. a mercantile area. sailors coming in and out, lots of ships. so they never wanted to raise here.family it was rented out by different tenants. mr. hole. tenants was he rented a dancehall. fraunces samuel purchased 54 pearl street and opened up the