the chemical bank in new york city and they owned a lot of property. so t.r. spent a lot of his inheritance from his father on ranching and wasn't very careful about money. they lived on his writing and salary. that is why they were strapped. >> edith was poor as a child compared to the roosevelts. so she was always in the habit of pinching the pennies. wasn't until they got the white house that she felt she had enough money finally to entertain and could relax a bit. >> as we close here, we've shown you the biography. i want to make sure to get it on screen. kathleen dawson's book, theodore roosevelt. our callers may have read it. you may want to learn more. as we close out quickly here, as we look at the pantheon of first ladies that we're going to understand and learn more about this year, where should edith

roosevelt sit? what's been her influence on the job and her influence of american history. >> eleanor roosevelt and franklin roosevelt came to the white house in the middle of the crisis in 1933. they told the friends, we would like our white house to be like uncle theodore's and aunt edith's. they were role models for other couples, presidential couples. they were vigorous, active, but they maintained a homey sense and kept their personal lives alive. so i think she's a really important organizational pioneer in some ways. >> you would say? >> i think the first lady has a fine line to walk between being the sort of embodiment of the ceremonial aspects of the job and the kind of global stage that the first lady needs to occupy and that the folks are like this is your house as well

as mine. she did that very, very well. the changes, the professionalism of the office itself, they were the clear sense that edith had that you were stepping into a new century and the future was going to be terrific. >> on that note, thank you to stacy and kathy for being with us tonight to tell us more about the life of edith roosevelt, the first first lady of the 20th century. thank you for your scholarship. appreciate it.

>> next up, mrs. taft. from that moment on, she yearned to return as a first lady herself. she had a great deal of influence over her husband who had become president taft, guiding the career, and on his inauguration day, she was the first first lady to ride alongside her husband in the inaugural parade. learn more including how she brought 3,000 cherry trees from japan to washington as we discuss life and times live tonight on c-span and c-span 3. we're offering a special edition of the book, first ladies of the united states of america, presenting a biography and a portrait of each first lady and comments from noted historians

on the role of first ladies throughout history for the discounted price of $12.95 plus shipping at c-span.organize/products. our website has more -- including a special section, welcome to the white house, produced by our partner, the white house historical association. it chronicles life in the executive mansion in the tenure of the first ladies. find out more at c-span.org/first ladies. in the moment, national security advisor susan rice talks about possible strikes against syria. she spoke at the new america foundation. that's next on c-span. later, reaction from members of congress to syria. later the series, first ladies, influence and image with the life of edith roosevelt. on the next washington journal, the proposed military strooim

strikes on syria. hear from california democratic representative barbara lee. she'll discuss efforts to avoid military strikes. then christopher smith. then later the ci a's national clandestine service. >> hi, everybody.

i'm ann slaughter. i'm the very new president of the new america foundation. i've been here a week. i've come to appreciate the enormous work that goes into setting up an event like this one. thanks to all of our teams. since all of you are here to see ambassador rice, i can't let you go without a plug for the weekly wonk, the new digital magazine. so sign up on your way out. it's a great pleasure to be able to introduce ambassador susan rice of the national security advisor. she became the national security advisor in july, the first woman to hold that position in the democratic administration. she moved back to the white house after four very successful years. as u.n. ambassador. she was really on the front lines of what seemed like a steady series of national security global security crises

in north korea, in iran, in libya, sudan, mali, and syria. this is ambassador rice's second tour in government. she during the clinton administration, she was first the director for peacekeeping and international organizations for the security council and the senior director for african affairs and the assistant secretary of state for african affa affairs. i've learned a lot about the arc of successful careers. there's not a lot of arc. it's sort of straight upward. she did take a break between her two tours of service to be in the brookings administration. and she is also a mother who took her infant into her senate hearings, a mentor, a friend, and a strong supporter of lots of foreign policy people in this town. i am personally very glad that

ambassador rice is sitting next to the president at this particular moment. she has deep experience of many different types of conflict. she has been part of the complicated dance between a force and diplomacy. deterrence, and compulsion. she's a tough negotiator and forceful advocate. she ensures all sides are heard and she understands the law of unintended consequences. she has firsthand experience of assuming the responsibilities of leadership, both at home and abroad. in many ways, she represents the best on a new america. she's going to speak on why the united states must act in syria. ambassador susan rice.

[ applause ] >> good afternoon, everyone. let me begin both by thanking ann marie for your kind words and your invitation to be here today and apologize to alloff for the late start. if i eve learned anything in my new job is that i'm not the master of my own schedule anymore. anne marie, i was to thank you for your principles leadership, both in government where we worked together so closely, now at the new america foundation. i wanted to commend you and your colleagues here for the many contributions you make to our national security discourse, including on the challenge that brings us together today. in response to bashar al assad's barbaric use of chemical weapons against syrian people, president

obama after careful consideration has decided it's in the national security interest of the united states to conduct limited, military strikes against the syrian regime. president obama has asked congress for its support in this action. pause in a democracy, our policies are stronger, more effective, and more sustainable when they have the support of temperature american people and their elected lead ers. tomorrow evening, the president will address nation and make his case for taking action. today i want to take this opportunity to explain why syria's use of chemical weapons is a serious threat to our national security. and why it is in our national interest to undertake limited military action to deter future use. there is no denying what

happened on august 21. around 2:30 in the morning, while most of demascus was still asleep, assad's forces loaded war heads filled with deadly chemicals on to rockets and launched them into suburbs, controlled or contested by opposition forces. they unleashed ellish chaos and terror on a massive scale. innocent civilians were jolted awake choking on poison. some never woke up at all. in the end, more than 1400 were dead, more than 400 of them children. in recent days, we've been shocked by the videos from the neighborhoods near demascus. as a parent, i cannot look at those pictures -- those little

children laying on the ground, their eyes glassy, their bodies twitching, and not think of my own two kids. i can only imagine the agony of those parents in demascus. sarin is odorless and colorless. so victims may not even know they've been exposed until it's too late. sarin target's the body's central nervous system making every breath a struggle and causing foaming at the nose and mouth, intense nausea, and uncontrollable convulsions. the death of any innocented in syria or around the world is a tragedy. whether by bullet or land mine,

or poisonous gas. but chemical weapons are different. they are wholly indiscriminate. gas plumes shift and spread without warning. the masses of people they can fell are immense. the torturous death they bring is unconscionable. chemical weapons like other weapons of mass destruction kill on a scope and scale that is entirely different than conventional weapons. opening the door to their use anywhere threatens the u.s., the united states and our personnel everywhere. there's no doubt about who is responsible for this attack. the syrian regime possesses one of the largest stock piles of chemical weapons in the world.

assad is struggling to clear the very neighborhoods in damascus, and drives out the opposition, but the conventional arsenal was not working well enough or fast enough. only the syrian regime has the capacity to deliver chemical weapons on a scale to cause the devastation we saw in demascus. the opposition does not. the rockets were fired from territory controlled by the regime. the rockets landed in territory controlled or contested by the opposition. and the intelligence we gathered with senior officials planning the attack and then afterwards, plotting to cover up the evidence by destroying the area with shelling.

of course, this is not the first time that assad has used chemical weapons in this conflict. we assessed that he's used them on a small scale multiple times since march. but august 21 was very different. whereas previous attacks each killed relatively few people. this one murdered well over 1,000 in one fell swoop. assad is lowering his threshold for use while increasing exponentially the lethality of his attacks. assad's escalating use of chemical weapons threatens the national security of the united states and the likelihood that left unchecked, assad will continue to use these weapons again and again takes it syrian conflict to an entirely

different level. by terrorizing civilians, creating even greater refugee flows, and raising the risks that deadly chemicals would spill across borders into neighboring turkey, jordan, lebanon, and iraq. and obviously the use of chemical weapons also directly threatens our closest ally in the region, israel, where people once again have readied gas masks. every time chemical weapons are moved, unloaded, and used on the battlefield, it raises the likelihood that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists active in syria. including assad's ally, hezbollah, and al qaeda affiliates. that prospect puts americans at risk of chemical attacks, targeted at our soldiers and

diplomats in the region and even potentially our citizens at home. equally every attack serves to unravel the longishe nations to renounce chemical weapons use. 189 countries representing 98% of the world's population are party to the chemical weapons convention, which prohibits the development, acquisition, or use of these weapons. the united states senate approved that convention by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. binding america to the global consensus and affirming that we do not tolerate the use or possession of chemical weapons. so the assad regime's attack is not only a direct affront to that norm, but also a threat to global security.

including the security of the united states. failing to respond to this outrage also threatens our national security. failing to respond means more and more syrians will die from assad's poisonous stock pile. failing to respond makes our allies and partners in the region tempting targets of assad's future attacks. failing to respond increases the risk of violence and instability as citizens across the middle east and north africa continue to struggle for their universal rights. failing to respond brings us closer to the when when terrorists might gain and use chemical weapons against americans, abroad and at home. failing to response damages the international principle

reflected 234 two multilateral treaties, and basic human decency that such weapons must never again be used anywhere. in the world. failing to resfond the use of chemical weapons risks opening the door to other weapons of mass destruction. and emboldenening the mad men who would use them. we cannot allow terrorists bent on destruction or a nuclear north korea, or an aspiring nuclear iran to believe for one minute that we are shying away from our will determination to back up our long standing warnings. if we begin to erode the moral outrage of gassing children in their bed, we open ourselves up to even more fearsome

consequences.

enforce the most basic and widely accepted international norms. most disturbingly, it would send a perverse message to those who seek to use the world's worst weapons that you can use these weapons blatantly and just get away with it. now, i know that many americans are horrified by the images from demascus and are concerned about the devastating broader consequences. but while they believe the world should act, they are not sure military action is the right tool at this time. let me address this important argument. the reason president obama

decided to pursue limited strikes is that we and others have already kpaulsed a host of other measures aimed at changing assad's calculus and his willingness to use chemical weapons. as the mass casualty attack makes clear, these efforts have not succeeded. since the beginning of the regime's brutal violence against its own people, more than 2 1/2 years ago, we have consistently backed the united nations' diplomatic process and urged the parties to the negotiating table, fully cognizant that a political solution is the best way to end the civil conflict and the syrian regime's torment of its own people. we collaborated with our european allies to impose robust comprehensive sanctions to

we supported the creation of the united nations commission of inquiry to document atrocities and deter perpetrators in syria. when assad started using chemical weapons on a small scale multiple times, we publicized compelling evidence of the regime's use, sharing it with congress, the united nations, and the american public. at our urge over months, russia and iran repeatedly reinforced our warnings to assad. for the last year, we admonished syria directly. we all sent the same message again and again. don't do it. but they did it. first on a small scale, in a manner hard for the world to discern. in response, we augmented our nonlethal assistance to the

civilian opposition and expanded the nature and scope to our support of the supreme military council. we pressed for more than six months to gain the united nations investigation team unfettered access to syria on the logic that the presence of such a team in the country might deter future attacks. or, if not, it might establish an evidentiary base that might compel victims of saddam hussein's monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987 and 1988 to pull the plug on the regime that gases its own people. but then, when u.n. investigators finally entered the country, the regime launched the large kems call weapons attack in a quarter century

while the inspectors staged on the other side of town. for five days thereafter, the regime stalled and shelled the affected areas to destroy critical evidence. so only after pursuing a wide range of nonmilitary measures to prevent and halt chemical weapons use, did president obama conclude that a limited military strike is the right way to deter assad from continuing to employ chemical weapons like any conventional weapon of war. the fact is, president obama has consistently demonstrated his commitment to multilateral diplomacy. he would much prefer the backing of the united nations security council to uphold the international ban against the use of chemical weapons, whether in the form of sanctions,

accountability, or authorizing the use of force. but let's be realistic, it's just not going to happen now. believe me, i know. i was there for all of those un debates and negotiations on syria. i lived it. and it was shameful. three times the security council took up resolutions to condemn lesser violence by the syrian rejeechlt f -- regime. three times we negotiated for weeks on the most watered down language imaginable. and three times russia and china double vetoed almost meaningless resolutions. similarly, in the past two months, russia has blocked two resolutions, condemning the use of chemical weapons that did not even ascribe blame to any party.

russia opposed two mere press statements expressing concern about their use. a week after the august 21 gas attack, the united kingdom presented a resolution that included a referral of war crimes in syria to the international criminal court. but, again, the russians opposed it as they have every form of accountability in syria . >> for all these reasons, the president has concluded that it is in our national security interest to conduct limited strikes against the assad regime. i want to take this opportunity to address concerns now that even limited strikes could lead to even greater risk to the united states. so let me describe as plainly as i can what this action would be

and just as importantly, what it would not be. the president has been clear about our purpose. these would be limited strikes to deter the syrian regime from using chemical weapons and to degrade their ability to do so again. what do we mean by limited? this would not be the united states launching another war. as the president said repeatedly this, will not be iraq or afghanistan. there will be no american boots on the ground. period. nor would it resemble kosovo or libya, which were sustained air campaigns. this will not be an open ended effort. as the president said again

repeatedly, this action would be deliberately limited in both time and scope. nor would this be new. the united states has engaged in limited strikes multiple times before. recall president reagan conducted air strikes measured in hours against libya in 1986. president clinton conducted several days of cruise missile strikes against iraq in 1998. no two military actions are identical. each has its own costs and benefits. but these previous engagements are proof that the united states is fully capable of conducting limited military actions without getting immeshed in a drawnout conflict. what do we mean by deterring and degrading the regime's chemical

weapons abilities. strikes could stop the ability to manage, dwrop, and deliver chemical weapons. assad would discover that henceforth chemical weapons would offer no battlefield advantage relative to their cost to use. and if assad is so braise on the use chemical weapons again, he would know that we would possess the ability to further degrade his capabilities. so in short, this will not be an open ended intervention in the syrian civil war. these strikes would not aim to topple assad or by themselves to effect regime change. doing so would require a much larger and sustained military campaign, putting american forces in the center of the civil conflict. and as president obama has made clear, it's neither wise nor

necessary to do so. like many, i understand the public skepticism over using military force, particularly in this part of the world. the wars in iraq and afghanistan have left many americans weary of further military action, however limited.

the limited strikes that the president plans are necessary and appropriate, which is why they have garnered support on both sides of the political

aisle. left, right, and center have strongly endorsed such action. there aren't many nonpartisan issues left in washington. this is one, or it should be. president obama has asked congress for their support as t the elected representatives of the american people. he knows elected the branch helps to ensure the maximum potency and sustainability of u.s. policy. this decision reflects the president's profound respect for the power of our democracy and his belief that the american people care to defend our most basic values and live up to our leadership in the world. and he knows, like all

americans, that we are strongest in the world when we speak clearly and stand together. at the same time, the international community recognizes it chemical weapons attack cannot be ignored. the urban league foreign ministers have called for, quote, deterrent and necessary measures. the organization of an islamic cooperation has said that the regimes attack, quote, requires a decisive action. the nato council has met twice. secretary rasmussen said there's the need for the response to avoid the attacks in the future. last friday, there was unanimous

agreement that chemical weapons had been used and the international norm against their use must be upheld, we gained unequivocal public suspect for u.s. military action from partners in europe, asia, and the middle east. australia, canada, france, italy, south korea, saudi arabia, spain, turkey, united kingdom, the united states, joined together in a strong statement declaring that the assad regime is responsible for the attacks and those who perpetrate the crimes must be held accountable. in subsequent days, germany, lithuania, latvia, croatia, estonia, denmark, romania, and qatar, have signed on the that same statement.

with expect more countries to add their support. over the weekend, katherine ashton issued a statement labeling the august 21 attack a blatant violation of international law, a war crime, and a crime against humanity. calling for a quote clear and strong response to ensure there's no impunity. every day, more and more nation s are coming to the same conclusion. of all of the attention given to the prospect of limited military strikes against syrian regime targets, i want to underscore such action is by no means the sum total of our policy towards syria. on the contrary, any such strikes would complement and reenforce the broader syrian

strategy which we continue to pursue with allies and partners. our overarching goal is to end the conflict through a political transition in which assad leaves power. the best way to achieve this is to deep can country and its institutions intact. but all parties have to be willing to negotiate. ours a multifaceted strategy to put pressure on the regime by isolating them and denying the resources, builds up the civilian and military opposition and secures diplomatic opinion with other key countries on the principle for transition while assisting those who need immediate relief.

thanks to the generosity of the american people, we lead the attempt to save lives giving $1 billion to clean water, food, and medical supplies. some of the medical supplies used to treat the victims in guta came from the united states. we continue to upgrade aned crease our support for moderate, vetted elements of the syrian opposition in coordination with our international partners. we're building the capacity of local councils and helping civilian leaders to deliver essential services to those in need. we're helping the opposition better serve the needs of the syrian people. we're expanding the existence to the supreme military council to strengthen the cohesion and the ability to defend against a oppressive regime that kills civilians with abandon.

limited strikes. that degrade the capacity to use chemical weapons and to kill on a horrific scale with impunity can also shake his confidence in the viability of his relentless pursuit of a military solution. but ultimately, the only sustainable way to end the suffering in syria is through a negotiated political solution. starting with the creation of a transitional authority that organizes the elections and meets the needs of the syrian people. a cease-fire and political solution are also, as a practical matter, the only way to eliminate completely the syrian chemical weapons threat. that is why we continue to increase pressure on the assad regime to come to the table and negotiate.

notably, we sensed more urgency among the key players to bring parties to the table to jump start a political transition. the united states shares that sense of urgency and our intention is to renew our push for the u.n. sponsored geneva process following any limited strikes. just as limited strikes would complement our broader syria policy, so, too, would they reenforce our broader middle east strategy. the united states will not take sides in sectarian struggles. we cannot and will not impose our will on the democratic development of other nations. but as president obama has made clear, we can and will stand up for certain principles in this

pivotal region. we seek a middle east that citizens can enjoy their right, live in freedom and prosperity. choose their own leaders and determine their own future, free from fear, violence, and intimidation. standing up to the syrian regime's barbaric use of chemical weapons will affirm the most basic of principles. that nations cannot unleash the most -- the world's most horrific weapons against innocent civilians, especially children. and failing to stand up to the weapons could imperil the arab spring to a darker more ominous turn. we seek a middle east where violent extremism, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction

do not threaten our allies, partners, and americans. we seek the stability of a region that is vital to the energy that helps fuel our global economy. countering syria's use of chemical weapons shows that the united states will act to prevent some of the world's worst weapons in human history from becoming the new norm. it will demonstrate that america means what we say. it will make clear to assad, his allies, hezbollah and iran they should not test the resolve of the united states of america. this has implications for our efforts to prevent a nuclear armed iran. the policy of the united states is clear, we will not allow iran

to acquire a nuclear weapon. with allies and partners, we continue to pursue a comprehensive strategy to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, including diploma diplomacy, pressure, and increasing sanctions. as the president has said, all options remain on the able. table. for our efforts to succeed, the leaders in teheran must know that the united states means what we say. if we do not respond when iran's close ally, syria, uses weapons of mass destruction, what message does that send to iran? it risks suggesting the international community cannot act when necessary. it hittings suggesting that the

region of global stability will be left to fester. it risks suggesting that egregious violations of international norms do not have consequences. make no mistake -- the decision our nation makes in the coming days is being watched in capitals around the world. especially in teheran and pyongyang. they're watching to see whether the united states will stand up for the world we're trying to build for our children and future generations. and if we fail to act, they will be emboldenened to push harder for the world that only they want a future where more of the world's most dangerous moments fall into the most dangerous hands. that is not the middle east or

the world that we seek. on the contrary, we seek a middle east where israelis and palestinians live in two states side-by-side in peace and security. yet assad's indiscriminate use of chemical weapons increases the possibility that they could some day be used against israel and palestinians. this only heightened the sense of vulnerability many in israel feel about the turmoil that engulfs their nation. and it might make it even harder for israelis and palestinians to take the risks for peace. the bottom line is that standing up to syria's use of chemical weapons advances our broader goals in the middle east. conversely, by allowing assad to act with impunity, everything

else becomes even harder. from countering terrorism to defending human rights. from promoting peace to ensuring our energy security, and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. in closing, allow me to speak not just as the president's national security advisor, but also as a parent. a mother. time and again, we've seen what happens when the world fails to respond to horrific abuses on the scale that we saw in demascus. we've seen even greater ba eer barberism that can fallon in rwanda or darfur. i've been to more than my share of war zones. each is horrible and unique lip

tragic. but this most recent atrocity is particularly gutwrenching. unlike the tragedies of earlier decadeses, we have the technology on our compute earles and smart phones to see the full horrors unfold in realtime. children lined up in shrouds, forever silent. devastated fathers and mothers kissing children good-bye. some pulling the sheet around their beautiful faces as if tucking them in for the last time. there's no words of condemnation strong enough to capture such infinite cruelty. but where words may fail us, action must not.

every adult american, every member of congress should watch those videos for themselves. see that suffering. look at the of those men and women, those babies, and dare to turn away and foresake them. watch those videos and imagine the months and years ahead where an emboldenened assad and those who follow his example carry out more attacks forcing us to witness more and more such depravity. i believe you will come to the same conclusion as the president -- and so many countries around the world that this cannot stand.

not in the 21st century. not given the values and principles that we as americans hold dear. as the one indispensable leader in the world, the united states of america can and must take action carefully, responsibly, purposefully. to reduce the chances of such an outrage happening again. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank ambassador rice for putting the case for action in international, national, and human context. she's answered lots of questions that have been on the table

nationally. she does not have time to answer your questions here. but i promise you we will debate every aspect of what she said and i frankly applaud the president for inviting us to have this debate openly and in the way that we have to have it as a nation. thank you very much. [ applause ]

sorry, yeah, i was at the white house. it's going to be difficult to move individual members of

congress. myself or others who do support the concept of the act to move republican members individually. the president addresses the nation and the white house makes a full scale effort. that way we can change hopefully the public nature of the debate and be less difficult to bring some of the republicans along. the president has to show -- ms. mcdonough wanted to give some advice how republicans could be persuaded and the main thing is to show this is a national security threat to the united states. not just syria. not the atrocities in syria as bad as they are. tie in jordan, syria, and iran. how it can be a lot more carnage and destruction if we don't take action now. also to show he has a comprehensive plan. can't keep sending different signals of body language that

congress is needed. so you can't act until congress does act. it's not his red line. he's strongly behind it. he intends to follow through on it. that's may be to satisfy some of the democrats who want a limited attack. if he expects republicans to come onboard, we don't want to have an attack for the sake of an attack. >> did you get the impression that that was taken into account and will be incorporated? >> well, again, mcdonough took into account. they have competing interests. they've given it to 535 commanders in chief. they're going in different directions. that makes this more difficult. again, the president and commander in chief has to decide how to do this. if he wants republican votes, i can only speak to that. the chance of getting republican

votes, he has to show a strategy that he's strongly behind it and that this is really in our national interests to follow through. >> have you ever as a republican been asked to the obama white house for advice on how to lobby members of congress or even the broader american public? >> i worked for the clinton white house in several issues but the first time for the obama white house. >> what does that tell you? >> shows they need the votes. they're in a tough shape. this is a serious issue. it's -- i think they realize their message has not worked and i give them credit for reaching out and hopefully it can work. but it's getting late. a lot depends on what he says tomorrow night and he can't make a partisan approach or somehow say he's going to do a better job of president bush and the republicans, this has to be an american unified national effort. you have to show he's serious about this. >> talk about the fact that their message isn't working. why isn't their message working?

what does he have to say a case differently. >> a coherent message. they haven't focused on it enough nor has the president shown by hi body language that this is serious to him. not to trivialize it but to say all week -- two weeks ago, the entire week congressional approval is not needed and at the last minute, to say he's going to get approval. to go and play golf with the vice president, going to sweden, staying at sweden. it's not his red line. didn't show a seriousness of purpose. he has time to show how serious this is to the world and to him. he has a comprehensive plan and strategy. >> is the die already not cast. talking about it for eight days and doesn't seem to be moving the meter at all?

>> no, again, we'll have to see. you can never underestimate the power of the white house, the bully pulpit of the president of the united states. and he and all of the elements of the white house reach out first of all, the president can make a strong statement if the members of the white house staff and national security staff reach out to individual members to show them the importance of it, then it can be done. i would never underestimate the power of any president to influence public opinion. it has though be done in a coherent way in a way that emphasizes the national security interests in the united states. not as tragic as it is to what happened to the people and those children in children, we have to show how it relates to the united states putting american lives at risk. >> what does he have to say specifically? >> he has to find his way to do it. it's america's national interest. it involves the entire region.

it involves the axis or the alliance between syria and iran and how if we can't stop syria from crossing its red line, how do we intend to expect iran to be fearful of crossing their red line. also in north korea. the immediate ones are israel, jordan, the middle east, and the axis between syria and iran. >> if the president fails to get the support of the house on this resolution, do you think he should go ahead with the targeted military strikes? >> i think the president has the complete legal authority to do that. it will be up to him to evaluate -- let's go one step at a time and see what happens. i thought from the beginning that the president had the full legal authority to do it. it was a mistake to create 535 commanders in chief. >> any thoughts on russia?

>> yeah, secretary clinton was outside. i met with her. i don't want to get ahead of the administration in anyway. they have to evaluate that. this is something very new. see how real it is and see whether or not this could be just a delaying tactic and how much of a role we want to give russia as far as having an influence on what's going on in the middle east and what the relationship is with syria and iran? >> would you trust the russians? >> i would never trust them. but the question is you lay it out -- trust can be verified. you have to lay out the whole situation. i don't want to speak for them. sometimes you have to shake hands with the devil. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> how do you feel after this briefing? >> i heard things that i hasn't heard before. it was useful in terms of educating. but did not sway me in my decision to still oppose giving authorization at this time. now i have another briefing i'm going to at 5:00 and the president speaking to the country tomorrow night.

a lot of work for me to change from a no vote. >> you will listen? >> i'm willing to listen. i know how important it is for us to get all the facts and like i said, things i learned in there today that i didn't know before. i have a huge issue with the problem that we would be availing ourselves to the third war. >> just broadly, did you learn more about the military strategy? more about assad? >> it was about our capability versus theres and what it could mean down the road. so many hypotheticals and so many scenarios that you can go through. a lot of it is people's opinions. people are thinking this would pan out or that would pan out or what's the likelihood of one thing happening versus the

other. the bottom line is where does that leave chemical weapons and the potential for boots on the ground in the future? my constituents worry about that more than anybody else. >> what would change your mind? you're from leo and you're willing to listen. >> for me, it's always been that the national security interests are directly affected. i just haven't heard the reason how yet. >> are you concerned that intervention would strengthen the other side, radical elements, al qaeda, etc., have that coming up. intervening on behalf of the rebels against assad, would it bolster groups in -- >> not or intervening? >> yeah, we talked about that. >> do you think president obama's remarks tomorrow could

sway anybody? >> i do believe he has an opportunity. he should have taken it last week. we should have probably voted on this to be honest with you. but he has the ability to sway people. there's a lot of people who are on the fence. a lot of people that believe that this red line that heard so much about should not be crossed. the town hall meeting today where i had a lot of people who were supportive of a strike. but it's not where the majority of my stitch went are. and it's not where i have been. >> you think your leadership may have gone out on a limb with mr. boehner and mr. cantor jumping out in front. there's not that much support. >> i think with regard to leadership, i think that they -- i will give them credit for allowing us to make up our own minds on this. there hasn't been any kind of a whipping operation or trying to

convince us one way or the other. this is one of the votes where i think that the leadership has allowed the conference to make up their own mind based on their districts, their conscious, and their own experiences. so whether or not they've gone out on a limb, i wouldn't say that. i think they made their position clear. but i have not had any kind of arm twisting at all. >> with that said, mr. cantor said on his memo on friday that there would be a vote sometime in the next two weeks and if the senator is not able to do know something, why would you move it to the house? >> it's clear that the american people deserve to hear what the house of representatives thinks about the request for authorization. and for the house of representatives, not to vote, regardless of how the senate votes, i think would be a huge mistake.

that is the real deal. that's where right back again where we were ten years ago. that means a lot of kids deployings. when parents have to send their kids to syria or whatever, that's somber, i think. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> hi, how are you? >> bill nelson came to the senate floor saying he will vote for the resolution authorizing the use of military force against syria. he spoke for about 15 minutes. >> i want to commend anyone that is listening to my voice to view the videos that the intelligence community has released. they came from social media.

they are 13 videos in excess -- came from a body in excess of 100 videos. but they show the horror of what happens to the human body with an attack by a weapon of mass destruction in this case, chemical weapons in this case, a gas called sarin. mr. president, it is my hope that the president when he speaks to the nation on tuesday, that he will show clips of those videos because i think that very few americans have seen the extent of those videos even

though they'd been shown on some cable shows in some limited amounts. but if they could see the range of why almost a century ago in 1925 the nations of the world came together in a treaty, this was after the use of chemical weapons in world war i, and this treaty banned the use of chemical weapons anywhere, any time, including in war. because of the horrific nature that their use causes. that was subsequently in the 1990s, reaffirm mr. president 234 a convention or some kind of

conclave where the nations of the world, something, i believe, in excess of 180 nations signed banning the use of chemical weapons. and if you will watch videos, you will see why. you will see what happens to an innocent human being as they struggle for life. before the throes of death overtake them. you will see on these videos. of course, parents want to use discretion because it will make a lasting impression. you will see how the body starts to shut down by the nerves being

attacked. now, interest fwli for t-- interestingly for the first time in a cbs interview today, president assad of syria has said, has admitted, today, that syria has chemical weapons. up to this point, that was denied. and no wonder he would want to deny. because when you see what happens to the use of them and what it does to the human nervous system, and i don't want to be graphic because i want -- i want anybody listening to what i'm saying to watch it. and i hope the president will show them tuesday night. to see how the human body

convulses and how when it attacks the nervous system, the convulsions and the twitching and what happens to the face and what happens to the respiratory system and all the evidences that come from that -- the american people need to know what we are dealing with, not just in syria, but in other nations that possess chemical weapons. not only sarin, which was the gas used here, but also mustard gas, and also a toxin called vx. that directly attacks the nervous system. and does not have to be inhaled

like mustard gas or sarin to do its evil did, but instead can be absorbed vx. through the skin. and so, if the american people will understand the consequences of the use of this, then they'll understand why it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction. along with biological weapons of mass destruction. introducing some plague among a community of innocents and, of course, the weapon of mass destruction that most everybody recognizes the nuclear weapons. they're all three weapons of mass destruction, chemical,

biological, and nuclear. and that's why in the family of civilized nations, we have said that their use is so abhorrent that civilized humans say that they should be banned. but they weren't. they were used extensively on august, 21. now, before i give the unclassified evidence, i want to point out that maybe there is a little opening on the occasion of the russian foreign minister today having said, since our secretary of state almost in an offhanded comment a few days ago

said well, it would certainly be a game changer if he would allow the he -- assad. would allow the international community to come in and take control of his syrian chemical weapons. the russian foreign minister today picked that up. and supposedly there's a comment by an official out of syria. that says that that is worth looking into. i can't speak to the awe then 'tisty of that comment. i've heard it was said. but whatever it is, of course, assad is the decision maker. and it's ultimately going to come down to him. but in the meantime, what the

united states ought to do and the congress of the united states, ought to authorize what the president of the united states has requested. that the congress back him in giving him the authority to use a limited short duration retaliation in degrading his capability -- assad's capability of utilizing these weapons in the future. if the u.s. congress will give the president that authority, it may well be the additional insentive for the ultimate decision maker, president assad, to do what the russian foreign minister has suggested. and that would be a good thing.

but in the meantime, we're going be debating this and we are going be put to the question -- do we support the president in this time of peril? get the facts. i think if you see the videos, clearly, most every reasonable human being is going to conclude that chemical weapons were used on innocents and the demascus suburbs on the night of the 21st. so the question then of course is there a chain of custody to show in fact they came from the syrian army. and there is unclassed iffed, a body of evidence that clearly shows so that to put it in the speak of the intelligence community, we have high

confidence. that mean s means that it happe. so how did that happen? the assessment is that the -- that the syrian chemical weapon s personnel who are associated with the chemical weapons part of the syrian command were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. there were streams of data. this is all unclassified. there were streams of data, of human signals, and geospatial intelligence that revealed regime activities where associated with the preparations

for that chemical weapons attack. syrian chemical weapons personnel, we nope, were operating in the damascus suburb from august 18 all the way through august 21th, and that was the suburb that was attacked. and multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the syrian army executed the rocket, an artillery attack against those sup bushes in the early morning hours of august 21st. we have satellite detections that corroborate those attacks. from a regime control neighborhood to where the

attacks landed. at the same time then, social media reports started toxplode about a chemical attack in the demascus sush bushes. those social media reports started coming at 2:30 in the morning. three hospitals in demascus received approximately 3600 patients displaying the symptoms of a nerve agent exposure and they received them in less than three hours. on the morning of august 21. as i said earlier, there have been over 100 videos o'attributed to the attack.

many of them, this has been distilled down to 13 videos showing large bodies exhibiting the physical signs of nerve agent exposure. any member of the senate will have access to the classified information that shows that is syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate those videos or the physical symptoms verified by the met call personnel. so when you put all of this with past syrian practice, some of the small scale attacks that they have done previously, then

the conclusion is obvious -- that the regime, the sir yap regime of bashar al assad, that dream was reading and directing the attack on august 21. so to this senator who has had the privilege of classified information to this senate who has visited with president assad three times, the last time of which was six years ago. of which the two of us had a sharp exchange then over what was happening in lebanon. the fact he was harboring hamas. and hezbollah, of which, of course, he denied.

to this senator, the conclusion is obvious there's a substantial body of information that corroborates that it was the syrian government's responsibility in a chemical weapons attack on august 21. there's additional information for the senators to see. now the question is -- are we going to agree to the president's request that we authorize him 20 attack? well, if we don't, where does that leave the president? on any kind of negotiations in

the future, 23 the president then decided to go and attack, you give to the opponents in these countries, especially president assad and north korea and iran -- you give to them the obvious scenario that the american people are show divided they will not support the president. and if he were to decide to attack, that all the more even though he knows its's his responsibility, to provide for the national security and he's sworn to provide for that national security. yet we looked so divided, at that point, whatever the scenario is to the future.

but look what it does in the minds of other people who want to do harm to the united states. does it give additional license to north korea if we were to do nothing. north korea is sitting on a huge stock pile of chemical weapons, not even to speak of their nuclear web upons. want about what iran? that we are so very concerned as they try, as they continue to energize weapons, materiel as they walk down the road, perhaps to building a nuclear weapon. what kind of message does it send to iran.

and just getting that out. if iran had a nuclear weapon or felt freely to use chemical weapons. does that not do for the instance of the united states in that region of the -- of the world, not even to speak of our allies in the region of which there are many. so i think it is clear to this sena senate, i will admit that i don't know why the president did not keep his own counsel and make the decision without saying that he wanted to come to congress. he made that decision and now it's coming for us.

hopefully there's validity to the report from the foreign minute bster. we will not know that for a long time until, as we say, the proof is in the pudding with assad turning over control of all of the chemical weapons to an international body. in the meantime, are we going to support the president of the united states? and i clearly think in the interest of the national security of this countryf and our allies, that is a position that we must take. i will vote yes on the resolution. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. >> a number of news outlets are

keeping a tally on if the house will go physical or mentally. 182 would vote no. 127 house members are undecided. and in the senate, 26 senators say they would vote yes. there are 25 no votes and 49 senators that are undecided. this according to the hill. >> proposed military strikes on syria. hear from california democratic representative barbara lee. she's proposing diplomatic efforts to avoid strikes. representative christopher smith on his bill on a war crimes tribunal. later the ci a's service.

washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i can remember so well the day that it happened because my father was, of course, a minister. we had gone up to the church to get ready for service. all of a sudden there was this loud thud. and we knew a bomb had gone off. you just knew that in birmingham in those days. we thought maybe in our community. she came in and said 16th street church had been bombed. we knew the little while later of the little girls who had been killed. and denise mcnair, one of the little girls, had been a family friend, kindergarten friend. at my this is graduate

diplomacy from kindergarten. a sad and terrifying day for our community. >> birmingham, alabama, a commemoration of the 16th street baptist church bombing live sunday at 11:00 a.m. eastern and throughout the day on "american history tv" on c-span 3. >> we bring public affairs events from washington to you putting you in the room with hearings, white house events, brieflings, and conferences and gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. c-span created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your cable or satellite provider and now you can watch us in hd. >> first lady edith roosevelt and her husband president teddy roosevelt moved into the white house with six children.

because she avoided the press, the public knew very little about her character and the role she played as an ambassador to her husband. a season's premiere looks back at the life of edith roosevelt next on c-span. then national security advisor, susan rice talks about new strikes against syria. more reaction from members of congress on syria. . .

assistant secretary of the navy, civil service commissioner, new .ork city police commissioner he wrote 30 books. serious naturalist. he did a lot of things. widely traveled a lot. a very expansive and interesting life. >> he triumphed. behind.ward instead of the things he said, it is a terrible thing to come into the .residency this way >> we will learn about the woman who helped him throughout his administration in the next 90 minutes. we were talking that the united states, in the dawn of the 20th century, was a horse and buggy nation. a few facts about america at that time. to give you a glimpse of what the country was like, in 1900, the population of the country was about 76 million.

38% of people still work in the agriculture industry and were farmers. in 1902, we ended the war. in 1903, the first time the wright brothers flew a petrol engine aircraft. started workicans on the panama canal. and, the model t and did the horse and buggy age. what can we learn about the country that the roosevelts seem to administer? >> it was a country marked by progressivism. there were a group of reformers across the nation. ,rbanization, immigration brought many wonderful things to the nation. there were also troubles. take care ofng to

injustices suffered by african americans. roosevelt stepped into the white house. >> we've heard about feeding your -- theodore roosevelt readiness for the white house. they had to move from their home on long island back and forth. she would be there in the was the civil service commissioner in washington. she was used to packing up the servants in the households and moved back and forth. she is somebody who knew how to manage things. with money.ood she would organize him and the children. .he was a good manager couple of things.

we are learning a lot, but we also learn in what you are interested in. in a few minutes, we will take telephone calls. let me give you the phone numbers. -- also, a conversation already going on facebook. you can join it by logging on facebook's c-span page and log into the mix. tweets. we are taking a #for the series we did not have in the first session, at first ladies. will mix all of that up over the next 90 minutes. one of the other great things is we have a video logger for out at the site of the earth's ladies along the way recording

the places where they live. tonight, we will introduce you to two of those associated with the roosevelts. what is sagamore hill? house where all go from the long island public schools. a fantastic job. a great place to visit. >> one thing you should know if you are planning a visit, it is under complete renovation. show you some of the artifacts. you learn a lot. we will start there with a video about edith roosevelt and her children, and you will hear the voice of the curator. this is a cartoon by a

newspaper man. it shows santa claus arriving at the white house to discover there are children at the white house, that the roosevelts had moved in. the title of the piece was, "there is life in the white house yet. the country was excited to have tooung family and children watch. they had a vigorous president with a vigorous and attractive life. santa claus represented the countries attitude. the biggest responsibilities edith had in the white house was to control the president access to the family. she arranged to have professional portraits taken of the children. the first two batches were by francis johnson, a well-known

society photographer in washington. a picture of clinton, famous for having written to death ridden the elevator to visit our she when was sick. archie and a bicycle, permit with jack, the wonder dog. in fronture standing of the tray. -- tree. you take these photographs and it shows you how they were used by the press. we have a picture of him in age three, a picture of ethel. one of my favorites, the little boy, posing with the white house guards. this is how president roosevelt 's were presented to the public.

usually, they were used in in magazinescles and that sort of thing. >> it sets the scene for this young family, coming into the white house. how did the public react and ?hat was the role of the press >> the public was delighted. they had become a fascinating part of our watching what is going on in washington. the antics of the children were in the newspapers. there was very little attempt to stop that, after pr learned this was good press for him. they were important parts of assevelts public persona

president. >> how did that contrast with the kindle -- the mckinley?'s -- the mckinley? -- the mckinley's? >> very different. it was more like the lincolns. the media was different during the civil war. they did not report so much about the children. there are -- there were all these journals that newspapers would put pictures of the children in their newspapers and then all of the magazines that people would buy, there is so much more active media so they could publicize what was going on in the white house more actively. >> a really important point. they were all photogenic and did

great stuff. they would steal cookie trays from the kitchen and fly down the staircase with them. they would scare guests. .hey would rollerskate >> the white house staff had their hands full. it was all terrific. thee were talking about fact this is the dawn of a new century but the roosevelts were brought up in the previous century. they were victorian in their attitudes. what kinds of parents were they? >> they were different kinds of parents. eat it could be fairly strict. of jonathan edwards. she thought children should behave. she was fairly strict. she would turn to theodore and ask them to do the banking, but he did it reluctantly and was indulgent.

the kids looked at him as a large playmate. she had to be the main parent. >> on twitter, did edith have reservations? >> yes. she beefed-up security whenever she could. greatest fears. she wrote about these fears of roosevelts death -- assassination. -- e thought carrying a gun >> how many children were there? >> six. >> explain who alice was and how she wrote -- how she related to the rest of the family. >> the daughter of theater roosevelt and his first life. when alice died in childbirth,

more or less, theodore roosevelt -- after his sister. he was raised until it entered the picture. >> it created problems. >> yes. >> as we learn about her, how much of the historical record exists about her? how much are we able to learn about her life and attitude? >> she contributed after he died. she did not do family history. family memoirs and did burn most of the letters but not all of them. she wanted to be very private. some of her letters survived. she tried to erase a lot of the record.

>> that is part of the victorian point you brought up earlier. being a woman in the 19th century. >> one letter where she described her children and their views of them. here is a view -- alice isabout alice, exceedingly pretty and has a remarkably steady head. in some ways, it is very childlike. ted is a good boy and does well in school. kermit is odd and independent as always. ethel is just a handful. she is a replica. idiot.he beautiful some of those terms sound harsh to us today but were terms of endearment. >> it was probably spot on at that point in time.

a pretty steady head and would grow up into a woman who had wonderful political achievements. archie had a tough time and had health problems when he was a young lad. kermit was the poetic one. both of his family -- both of his parents confided in them -- in him. anet ethel when she was older person. very gracious and wonderful lady. -- upon rock a palm whom you could build the rest of the family. he bore the brunt of all his nations.expert

what to do with your life, manliness. >> where the roosevelts put their six children, the largest family in the white house? 15, but i do not know if they were all at the white house. be among the largest family ever. thosewas more typical in days, a lot larger families. >> can on the air, what is your question? >> yes. it will probably be something you address later on in the program. what was edith roosevelt's relationship with president roosevelt? >> thank you. se will talk about the taft later on, but really briefly, ow did they know the taft? >> they were social friends. i do not think edith cared for mrs. taft so much. they were friendly during

theodore's presidency. it is during 1910, after taft shows his hand as president that hostilities rake out. >> next is a call from alexander in indiana. hello. >> i have a question about theodore roosevelt. >> happy to hear it. can you tell us how old you are? >> 12. theodoreou studied roosevelt in school already? >> no. i have a paragraph about him. he is my favorite president. >> y? >> he does a lot for the country. class can you name one thing you can you name- >> one thing? >> he's got the american civil war. he believed in god and jesus. >> thank you. >> a devout christian.

fact, incorporating religion into edith's life, we talk about her religion and how it informed her life, she argued for applied christianity. she would urge her husband to think about how his policies affected the poor. she was a social gospel christian, taking care of the poor and being concerned about the needy. he was episcopalian. at the time, the church was , concerno the gospel for poor people. are on.nnsylvania, you >> thank you. i understand one side of the family wanted to be called roosevelt. is this true? if so, which would be which? >> that comes from the old

movie. no, they are all roosevelts. >> the lineage of the family, hat is their history? >> the oyster bay roosevelt share a colonial ancestor. a duh settler in new york, and then two or three generations down, the family through -- split. theodore roosevelt, the fifth cousin of franklin roosevelt. the complicated thing is theodore roosevelt had a wonderful niece, he loved yearly, eleanor roosevelt, and ben franklin married theodore's niece. franklin would call theodore cousin theodore but then called him uncle theodore. >> i feel the need for a family tree. [laughter]

>> distant cousins. this largeage for and bustling family. the roosevelts moved into the white house and then they it would not work for them. a sketch she drew one will -- one week after. for the second floor that shows how very crowded it was to have the family and workspace there. what did she do? >> she picked up on harrison's place in the white house and got together with a very influential firm. .here is for the a big back stoe to cut to the chase, he decided he was tired of moving in with the store. he wanted to separate the living areas with the public areas.

was renovated and most people really liked it. the upstairs had seven bedrooms and bathrooms. that was pretty good. alice, the teenage daughter, had her own bedroom. mrs. roosevelt put her own study up there. the president had a study in the office in the second floor. so did the. that was important to her to knock on the door and say, time for bed, you are working to eight. >> this really created the white house as we know it today. if you look at the photographs of the white house as it existed, there were large greenhouses around this. the whole feeling of the white house. how cooperative was congress? >> congress voted money for this. they wanted a better house. it was the moment when the united states became a power,

modernizing the presidency, the united states did not arrived as the most successful manufacturing power on earth. they were in the process of becoming a very serious world power. it was a matter of national pride to have a presidents distinguished. it was important for all kinds of reasons. it was a marvelous reflection as thechanges discussed country takes on a new aspect. so is the executive mansion, which now remains the white house. there is only one white house. >> how long did the reservation take? -- renovation take? >> one year. >> where did they stay? did they go back to the hill?

>> over the summer they stayed there. the renovations started before she left. hit by the trolley in the middle of this, so they have difficult moments where he is negotiating in a wheelchair because he was hit by a trolley accident. >> how involved was edith roosevelt in the actual renovations? how much of a vision did she -- ultimate ultimahit design? >> edith was very interested in the past. -- she was very interested in history. it reflected the long, important

path of the united states. she had her eye on the bottom line. edith was good at managing the emotions and read the accounts and when the money got tight, she was very creative and a good steward of the nations money. she took the parts on the first floor and said, we are running out of funds and had them recut. she took curtains from the first floor and had upstairs furniture reupholstered to save money. completeds upload -- in time for the social season in 1902. on the line with us, los angeles, hi, marvin? you back.o see i have a question about the relationship between edith roosevelt and franklin roosevelt. in 1924, al smith ran for governor of new york and

theodore roosevelt junior was the republican candidate. eleanor roosevelt supported al smith. first timehing, the i went to washington was 1955. hoping to see a celebrity, i anded over and saw a crowd a slim lady with a hat was herdicating the statue father dedicated years ago. it was alice roosevelt. she seemed to enjoy being the center of attention. this was 1955, after leaving the white house in 1909. >> she loved to be the center of attention. were basicallyts very close. roosevelt loved to come and visit theodore roosevelt. were friendly.

eleanor, of course, was edith theodore's neath. she is to read her approaching -- poetry. very friendly with her. ,hen eleanor franklin married theodore gave her away, acting the part of her father. edith signed their marriage license. eleanor and love franklin in the beginning. ted roosevelt has political ambition. some people accused him of being involved with the teapot dome scandal. it turns out it is really not fair. eleanor drove a car with a teapot on top of it to embarrass her cousin. that created it her feelings for a wild. -- four a while.

for a while. quite selective historians say about the missing record? >> i think we know a lot about that. we have a good record of what the relationship was like. theodore roosevelt adored edith roosevelt. she was devoted to him. it is not that they did not have their difficult moments. he was not an easy husband. he forgot birthday. he could be very inconsiderate. i think we know a lot about them, even though she burned some of the letters. >> he wrote about her, highly

complementary things. >> we will return and look at the collection of artifacts for the white house here. you here areow objects of the white house. mainly personal objects. also, this lovely cup. you can see the presidential seal. this is a cup and saucer from the white house service that edith ordered in the white house after the renovation was completed. a newspaper article showing the white house service, you can see the cup here in the top picture. of ordered 1100 25 pieces new china to replace what she called the scraps, the bits and broken pieces from all the white house china sets that were in the house when she got there. what we do have here are examples of an image --

invitation to a garden party that she threw. the dinner invitations are very specific. they tell you when to arrive and when the dinner will be over. it is very clear you are not to overstay your welcome. and and have your dinner go home afterwards. some of the other objects you see year include a goldplated vanity sets like the sober one he had were used for perfume and other sents. .ou have a come and brush and this was indicative of her status. she was the first lady and she took that job seriously. this is a set of her gloves and this is a glove box that was kept on her dresser. and it does open. u see it's lined with velvet

and would have held a dozen pair of gloves. she loved fans. she collected fans and liked to carry fans at public receptions. she liked to stand in line next to t.r. he loved to shake hand. by holding fans she did not have to shake hands with strangers and she was delighted by that. >> this is the family's china. they didn't use the white house china for their every day meals. they used this china which is english and you can see that it is pretty plain in design except for t.r.'s initials in blue in the middle of the plate. as first lady she did receive a lot of gifts both from friends and family but also from foreign leaders. these lovely silver bracelets re sent to her from either

open i can't. this is what she kept them in and she wrote notes to herself so she could remember where the difment things came from. and it says silver bracelets emperor at interior the white house. >> we open the case here so you can get a close up look at the figure rins which were given to her by the french government. they are made of french porcelain and they were used to decorate the tables at the white house. but it was clear they were a gift to her and she liked them and she made sure she took them with her when she left the white house. >> a sense of life at the white house under the roosevelts. you were making the point this was the dawn of america on the international stage and roosevelt as the adventuring

president in some ways. how did they use their social aspects of the white house to advance that view. >> in order to for the united states to be taken seriously as a world power, the united states president had to entertain heads of state elsewhere. so the white house changing really made a difference. plus all of those democrat mat i can receptions and open events, big dinners, i think 40,000 people came through the white house in the first year. it creates good will. if you had dinner with someone you're more likely to be able to work with them afterwards. and sometimes we under estimate the power of face to face interactions. the roosevelts did a good jock of this because they knew how to socialize. >> ho,000 guests in the white house in the first year alone.

>> that's a lot. >> it's a lot but if you are highly organized she had her social secretary and knew how to do this. as t.r. modernized the presidency and changed the navy and changed the government and created the first foreign eastern desk in the state department it was. in the early oh 20th century they were modernizers. was hiring of the social secretary one of the things most historians point to as the modern first lady. what was the concept of a social secretary? how did she use her? >> she hired a woman who was interesting in her own right. by age sf she was an orphan and had brothers to take care of so she went into the work force. she eventually worked for the war department.

but she also did the task of being a social secretary where you help an elite woman with her correspondence and whatever hosting duties she had. . is is what she did sos she was an old hand at this. and she came into the roosevelt white house at the time when by first lady was inundated all the details of alice's day bufmente so alice is making her social debut and there were letters to write, there were invitations to offer. there were flowers and many things to take care of. that's when bell snepped and she stayed until the end and was quite a member of the family. at one point ed dith said i think of you as my daughter. so they had quite a close

relationship. bell became a surrogate mother in some ways when children couldn't go to edith for something. they wrote and said could you alice some treats and was not supposed to take a bracelet from a young man but she did and lost it so she asked bell for help recoverings it. >> is it fair to say this managing of the social was serious business. >> she didn't want people who were aadulterers or unacceptable socially to be a part of their entertainment. and of course, most people were white and there weren't that many juice invited to the -- ews invited to the white house

at the time. and so it was washington elites and people in government, foreign diplomats and people like new york society. so it was an exclusive group. >> it's important because she begins what is a tradition now of the bureaucraticization of the office of the first lady. now bell was not the first social secretary to work for the first lady but she stays the longest. mrs. taft does not have the same sort of social secretary relationship and that is to her peril. >> that's the influence of edith roosevelt she began the bureaucraticization of the role of the first lady. >> let's talk to bud who is watching us in st. louis. >> thanks for coming back again. >> glad to be back.

>> i'm a major teddy file and just a shrine note, we got a great connection here in st. louis with t.r. with the world's fair. and i know that the history museum down in forrest park is there say great photograph of him at the opening ceremonies. but my question was this: and i i s because he did so much have trouble keeping dates straight. i do know that i believe that his first wife and his mother died the same day and that more or less forced him to go west, take up the cow buoy life. my question when he came back, when did he mayor edith? was it before the spanish american war and did she help

him overcome that sorrow of his first wife and mother. and thanks for taking my call. >> i'm going to ask very brief touching on this story because we'll spend more time on that later. what about the dates of their marriage? let's give them facts. >> february 14, 1884 is when alice dies and then t.r. marries edith. december 1886 and the spanish 18'9". war is july ? and you are right, there is a very unforgettable story of the death of theodore roosevelt's first wife. but we're fog to keep you hanging on a little bit to tell ou later in the program.

ed is watching us in north dakota. this is roosevelt territory. >> thanks for taking my call. i am the chairman of the theodore roosevelt foundation and our effort with the foundation is to sustain life as a cattle rancher here in north dakota. earlier your mentioning of about a method of keeping the socially unacceptable people out of the white house. tell me about how when cowboys and rough rider friends were coming through the white house. >> i think it is understood that his time in the dakotas was precious to him. e said he would never have been president if it had not been for his time in the dakotas. the theodore roosevelt center

is a wonderful project. i think she understood she had visited the ranches that he had an understood that his time being a rancher meant everything to him, so she put up with some people like desperadoes and farmers and cowboys who tr loved. she was quite a young woman and he was head over heels with north dakota. she wanted to know all about the things that he loved. those new marvelous sleek colorful care tours from north akota had a marvelous patina for her. >> did he have a rants throughout their presidency? >> no, he had to sell it. he was sort of a failed cattle rancher. my grandfather was a wheat armer, and those were hard

times. it is now a national park. >> there are oil derricks there. north dakota had an oil boom and natural gas boom and the landscape was bothered a bit, but there is a very large tr contingent and they loved him there. >> you have to understand north dakota. there is the theodore roosevelt center where there are 155,000 letters. and there is the foundation that your caller mentioned. there is a joint effort to keep the memory of theodore roosevelt alive. >> john is in silver spring,

maryland, outside of washington. >> i would like to know how did edith and theodore meet, and how long was their courtship before they married? >> before i leave the question of the time of their white house years, how do she compare with a modern first lady, particularly jackie kennedy, in the white house? this is something that edith roosevelt did. how did she approach introducing americans to culture and supporting the cultural life of the white house? >> theodore roosevelt was not as bad as president grant. he said there were two songs, one is yankee doodle dandy and the other isn't. >> she brought amazing inner came into the white house, including pablo casals.

she brought the entire philadelphia orchestra at one time. she loved the corcoran art gallery, theater and art and music. tr brought indian songs. he helped encourage john lomax to discover cowboy songs. hey wanted people to understand and have culture. it was not a colonial society

anymore. it depended on european cultures for borrowing artists. they are really important in that sense, too. >> since they had sagamore hill, why did they need a retreat? >> it took a while to get to sagamore hill because it is all the way in long island. e had a lot of political conflict and difficulty and at times when he was having a rough time, it he had gained a lot of weight. have been to the cabin. there is no plumbing, no electricity, nothing. they had a kerosene stove. they had to do everything for themselves.

>> we took a camera there. let's take a look. remember this is a very wealthy family in the height of society. keep that in mind when you see the house that edith built called pine know in virginia. > a place for rest and repairs o the president. close enough to d.c. that they could get out as often as needed, but far enough away that there was wilderness. she bought a cottage and 15 acres and her renovations that she prescribed for $280.

the deed was written in her name. the renovations that she did include this porch, which he called her piazza. most of what you see is original. the color of the house now is the color that it was when the roosevelts were here. the interior is completely unfinished. she wanted it to be natural in every sense. this room was divided into two and edith wanted to have the family be here together. they cooked the meals by the fireplace. edith would boil the water for the t, and the children would fetch the would and do the various things that were needed to get the meals together. when edith solve a cottage for the first time, there were no fireplaces. she had designed these stone

ledges that are built into the fireplace to provide some functionality. the stairs were originally in the center of the room so they took up the whole thing. she wanted the bottom for to be in an open room and the other issue wanted to create a room upstairs. this is the room she created for ethel. it had a door so at the would have been able to shut off her druthers from entering her room. this is where edith and t are slept. this was the master bedroom, as it were. you can see the light streaming through the boards. it is no more better appointed han the other rooms.

this is the boys room. all four of the boys would have slept in this room when they were here. this has a wonderful mantle and even better yet, it has stone supports that edith would have designed. this was a family place. in that sense, it was unique to the roosevelts because sagamore ill had become a place where tr had constantly a hubbub of activity. this was the one place where it was right at family time, and the roosevelts made it very clear they did not want anyone but family here. quick she wanted to tell the story about pine knot. >> there was no more privacy in the white house and very little at sagamore hill by this time. in oh wait, they had to go far off the grid, as we say now. >> the driving distance from washington today, how long

would it take you to get there? >> a little bit more than an hour. >> one can go visit today? >> i believe you can. >> today there would have to be a perimeter and the press would be hanging out and making sure no one was coming and going in using telephone lenses to get to them. >> edith lost sleep when they first went there because she as worried about intruders and she did not feel it was safe. as close to the farm, they would sometimes have neighbors come over. they went out at night to take a little walk down the road. there were secret service men

that edith had secretly put their and she did not tell tr. > he really didn't want to protection e >> he didn't think he needed it. he was cavalier about it, where she was very worried. he was eventually shot in the 1912 campaign and there were other attempts to get at him, o she had reason to be nervous. >> adrian asked on facebook, was edith into hiking, nature, and hunting like teddy? did she enjoyed being outside and living a more rustic life? >> getting away from society and not needing all the modern comforts, i'm not sure that she ever hunted. >> i know that after a certain number of children, i think -- theodore would go over, under, around, and through.

she was not like a classic big orient lady. she would go on hikes. after he died, she traveled around the globe and took a anoe trip to a distant waterfall. she was willing to hike and after he died she travels round the world. >> next is johnny from denver, colorado. >> thanks for your wonderful series. i hope it continues. my question is on mount rushmore. seeing how she was alive during its conception and construction.

>> she knew the person who carved it, but i don't remember reading anything -- i'm not sure it's finished, or was it? i think it was finished in the 20's are 30's, but i'm not sure he ever sees it. some people think that tr shouldn't be on their. the builder admired him very much. i think the fact that the bull moose monument -- >> barbara says i would like to know if edith cooked very uch. do we know about whether or not he prepared food for her family e >> no, i think she was

proud that she had never made a bed in her life except maybe at pine knot. >> the women's movement that as going on, where did edith stand on this e i very much ould like to know the answer to that. >> she said in private that she thought suffrage was a good idea. women could vote in western states i believe in 1904, you could vote in utah and colorado and some other western states. when susan b anthony came to

the white house, alice was the person who was most sympathetic to suffrage. >> barbara is in peoria. >> i would love to know whether it is true that the error roosevelt had booker t. washington as a guest to inner, and if so, was that a first? >> in 1902, theodore roosevelt did invite t washington, the leader of the tuskegee institute and a very important figure in african-american history. he was recognized as an mportant educator but also dealt with political patronage for the republican party. edith and tr had them to dinner. rederick douglass would come

to the white house and talk to lincoln, but i don't think a dinner was involved. it is not the first time an african-american came, but it may be the first dinner. >> it could be. people threaten to kill tr. hey said they should put a bomb under his chair because he advocated social equality to blacks and whites. you have to remember in african-american history, african reconstruction, this is the nadir, the low point of legal segregation, and african-americans in the south were treated very badly. it was very controversial to cross the color line socially. >> in one biography of her, there are a number of citations of personal correspondence where she would use what we would consider derogatory terms

about african-americans. he writes in the book, it ollows in the range of general white attitudes among the upper-middle-class in those years. t was delivered without much thought of -- has not been explored. what kind of influence can we know that she might have had in this thinking on this topic capital >> this is a couple that has been together every day. they went horseback riding, they went walking. they had a very close relationship. i think what lewis l gould is doing in his book, and i would call him the founder of modern first lady scholarship. he is looking at these letters and terms edith is using to describe african-americans and finding them within the boundaries of what white

mericans used. what kind of influence does she have on her husband? we don't know. t would be interesting to look at the timing of the brownsville incident with some of the things edith has written and what she said. african-american soldiers who were falsely accused and brownsville texas, there was local hostility and tr didn't really want to know the details. they got dishonorable discharges, and i think quite njustly. he did not have a great amount of african-american support in the north where they could

vote, and certainly he lost them over that. when he was no longer going to run for president, he was less attentive to the needs of african-americans. >> it prompts more questions. t is a terrible topic but it just shows you there are always more questions. >> she brought in singers of spirituals. them an audience at that time. it is not minstrel shows, it is spirituals.

looking back, so much has changed. at the end of his life, he said justice has not been done for black people. >> it is a very interesting topic. >> we will return to sagamore hill, the family home in long island and learn more about their collection that shows family life of the roosevelts. >> this is a fascinating piece. most people take baby pictures and snapshots. the roosevelts at some point had three other children, permit, havebald and edith