so daniel webster, anyone remember who daniel webster is? you guys cover daniel webster before? daniel webster? so this guy was super important, major orator, senator. his infamy, he signs off in 1850 on the fugitive slave law. doing that he becomes a great tatar of new england, that leads to uncle tom's cabin in 1851. that is sort of where it ends, he died in 1852 shortly after tatar of new england, that leads that. in 1820, he is very much on the rise, he is an important senator, house speaker, lawyer. super important on various supreme court cases throughout this period. he is known as sort of the great orator of the north. you have the big commemoration ceremony, you ask the best speaker to speak and of course, he does his job. what he does is basically he rewrites the history of america through the pilgrims and what he does is he imagines the spread of their virtues, what they gave us, et cetera, transmitted from heir to heir to heir to heir from the atlantic to the pacific. he does both of these things in the speech. so he closes his speech by imagining the voice transmitt

people like daniel webster and john c. calhoun and henry clay. maybe this complicates things a little. >> for sure it complicates things. that fwoets back to the idea i said before that people think back to the era, they call it the golden age, a burcham of guys in black coats and mr. clay, and that's how we imagine the period. you know, there were -- there was speech fieing. americaning memorizing the speech fies. but happening around that was the stuff going on in in book. congress was a human institution, not a monument, not a sort of bastion of eloquence all the time. people went to hear the speeches. but then this they said that wasn't that good. >> but i don't want to say all the time it was two guys slugging each other. but that said, i think for sure if our history books tell us that congress is this beautiful

is pier 70 has been near and dear to my heart in hosting some of the largest fundraisers for daniel webster, which fund $550 per student in terms of additional resources we need, and i think that if we can keep the public land focused on those that align with the public interests and can support our community, i think we'll all end up in a better place. thank you. >> president brandon: thank you. is there any other public comment? >> hi, i'm here today to discuss my strong opposition and discuss the leasings of 102 and 104 to juul labs. as a long-time resident, a parent of a 14 year old, i'm appalled that the many years of planning with and for the community on the new iteration of historic pier 70 has resulted in the de facto privatization of public land and utterly fails the community. at expansion of private use on public land is for juul labs, a tobacco company that's come under fire by the cdc, usf, and stanford, and whose core mission is addiction is unconscionable. this company has given us a new verb, juuling, because of their slick, high-tech cigarettes. up more than 77% in high sc

john calhoun and daniel webster in the divergent views on how the country was to be governed.ontero investigates corporate bribery and how it affects democracy in "kickback". our look at this week's new book releases continues with the allies. winston groom's recount of the unlikely alliance between the u.s., uk, and soviet union during world war ii. ... >>> ... >> watch for authors in the nea. >> i am pleased to

daniel webster, i mentioned him already. this does he fit into story. he became a senator from in the early 19th a famous orator. was annex he federalist turned a wig as contrasted with the jacksonians democracy. when he spoke in plymouth on the 200th anniversary of the landing of the pilgrims in december of 1820, he knew basically nothing he knew pilgrims, but that he was -- that all around occurring an effort to define the origins of the still n nation then coming into being. still finalized, but coming into being. wand, and his magic argued that plymouth pilgrims are contributed the most to -- contributed the most to americans. he didn't know the pim grimes -- pilgrims were the puritans, he went on about and literacy, we don't necessarily think about pilgrims being good at, massachusetts eople are much better at this, but he repeated the myth in was that something absolutely extraordinary happened with the arrival of the pilgrims, america was born. and in exactly the same moment said,s saying this, others well, look, there's the mayflower compact. th

people like daniel webster and and henry clay, maybe to complicate things a little. joanne: for sure, it complicates things. goes back to the idea that i think people think back to the a golden age, a bunch of guys wearing black coats. mr. clay! how we imagine the period. you know, there were speechifying, americans memorizing the speechifying but wasening all around that the stuff going to in this book so congress was a human institution. monument.a it wasn't a sort of bastion of eloquence all the time. people went there to hear the speechifying, although, they did that, they inevitably said that wasn't as good as i thought it was be.g to still, i don't mean to say everything all the time was two slugging each other but that said, for sure, i think we bookso -- if our history are telling us that congress is this beautiful, glorious, golden this period and we have to get back to there, there gloriouseautiful golden place to get back to. broad statement. is a struggle, you know. always has been. have to stand up for what you believe in and you have for things that you

. >> people like daniel webster and calhoun and henry clay maybe complicateds things a little. >> that kind of goes back to the idea that people think back to this era and that's what they call it, the golden age. it is a bunch of guys wearing black coats and, you know, mr. clay. and that's how we imagine the period. and, you know, there were -- there was speech, there were americans memorizing the speech. happening all around that is the stuff happening in the book. congress is a human institution. it is not a monument. it is not a of eloquence all the time. i don't mean to say that everything all the time was two guys slugging each other. but that said, for sure i think we need to -- if our history books are telling us that congress is this beautiful place in this period and we just need to get back there, there is a golden beautiful place to get back to. broad statement. democracy is a struggle. always has been. and you have to stand up for what you believe in and you have to watch out for things you that feel are going to be threats to the republic. and that is some of what is goin

daniel webster said that back in 1850. it was dying because cotton is like tobacco. it saps everything out of the soil. and edmund roughing was running late with his theory of crop rotation. so in the deep south the planters would grow cotton in a field year after year until said field would not even grow weeds and then they searched for other land and were desperate throughout the 1850s. pardon me. trying to find new acquisitions of new mexico, arizona, california, offered no outlet for it. it would have died naturally because it is cotton that would cease to exist. and that's one compromise that could have come about. in addition the industrial revolution was swinging into gear in the late 1850s and industrialization was clearly surpass agriculture the great land of formers which jefferson envisions and never had a chance and we would become a industrial nation and the cotton would disappear. and so in spite of the factors, neither side could agree. southerners were too proud to admit what little the future held and northers were too impatient to wait for the inevi

daniel webster said that back in 1850. that was happening because cotton is like tobacco. it saps everything out of the soil. so, in the deep south, the planters would grow cotton in the field year after year until the field would not even grow a week. that they would search for other land, and they were desperately throughout the 1850s, trying to find usable land for cotton and certainly the new acquisitions like new mexico, arizona, and california did not offer anything for it. slavery would have died naturally because the bumper crop cotton would have ceased to exist. that is one compromise that could have come about. in addition, the industrial revolution was swinging into gear in the late 1850s, and industrialization was clearly so fast and would surpass agriculture, the great land of farmers in which jefferson envisioned, never had a chance. we was becoming an industrial nation and the cotton kingdom would have ended that way. in spite of these factors, neither side could agree. southerners were too proud to admit what little the future hail. northerners with too imp

i i understand daniel webster argued one case for about three days. in the am stad -- am miss stad -- amistad quace that john quincy adams, one of my heroes, he argued, even though he was an ineffective president, some say best educated, perhaps most intelligent, but he was determined to bring an end to slavery. he was talked in to handling the oral argument in the amistad case before the supreme court when they were meeting downstairs and his arguments spilled into a third day. since it was multiple days, one of the nine justices even died during that time. that crimps your argument a little bit if you lose a justice. they didn't have time limits. you would argue the case as long as you wanted. in you go down to the old supreme court chamber downstairs, they have two red couches. they are alled fainting couches -- they are called fainting couches, because lawyers could argue a case as long as they felt like they should. and sometimes they might grow faint and they had a place to land if they argued too long and became faint. heck, if the courts are g

the epic rivalry of henry clay, john calhoun and daniel webster, the second generation of american giantsbecause there's been an enormous amount written on the revolutionary war era and the civil war era. but the period in between is kind of like flyover country. congress was the initiator. that's the way the framers designed it. it's the most detailed. during this period, that's the way things ran. it was also a time when compromise was considered a political vi political virtue. i tell it through the lives of three great members of congress in the era, clay, calhoun and webster. >> so these rock stars of this generation, what was the approach to politics in this flyover section of the country, as you call it? are there any parallels you see erupting now? >> the era was when compromise was understood as the way to move things forward. what happened after they died, the spirit of compromise died with them. within ten years, the country was at civil war. there was a period in the 20th century was compromise was admirable. even the reagan administration. all the big pictures were passed wit