daniel webster, john c. calhoun.ll three of these men were giants in their period, but the nation rejected them and took people with names like fillmore and tyler and names that were not as prominent in in the period -- in the period. it was like the country didn't want strong leadership in that era, andrew jackson being the exception to that. >> and your book is about henry clay's family. what role did they play in his political life? >> well, one of the reasons i became interested in the study was because historians imply, sometimes state openly that his family was a burden to him, that they restricted his ability to become president. and i did a biography of a great granddaughter who was a poet. and in the process of that i began to see a different picture. um, clay worked as hard at providing for his family and setting his sons up in business as he worked at holding the union together. and simultaneously. a lot of people suggest, for example, that lucretia, his wife, was a burden. she did not like washington. was

after britain abolished slavery in the 1830's, the whole texas battle and 1840's, john c. calhoun. conspiring to try to get taxes when it was an independent. trying to get the spanish to abolish slavery in cuba. quite annoyed at what they felt was britain's meddling with slavery in the new world. it was not at all clear that seveners would see britain as a likely ally. on the other hand britain depended on southern common for textiles. the get to that in a minute. he seemed to think it was a big mistake not said emphasize slavery. the beginning. the beginning of the war this was all or about union, not fighting to abolish slavery. i get the impression that you feel that really made it impossible for the union to really get the kind of support in britain at the beginning that it might have. >> i do believe that, and it would not have taken that much for them to provide a letter. could have shown him before. domestically in america we could talk to what the war in terms of union. as you and i know this is a war about slavery. >> which eventually they do say, but it takes awhile. >> t

he was an officer in the military, he repeatedly tried to ingratiate himself to people such as john c. calhoun. he may not have been the brightest bulb in the chandelier because calhoun didn't pick up on him, and though i won't get into it at least in this talk at this moment, his mission to mexico got a little fouled up because of some of the things he did. but when he was dispatched by the united states government to go to mexico, it was to buy land for a railroad to go, create a transcontinental railroad that would parallel the transcontinental railroad being planned through the middle of the country. we talk today about big business and its involvement with government and government bailing it out or the amount of money that big business has in campaigns. at this point in his life, james gadson was a railroad president. and in 1853 the taxpayers in this country spent millions of dollars to acquire land so that the railroads could build a railroad that they could draw great profits from. but that was not benton's nightmare. benton's nightmare was the fact that we didn't need that land to cr

like, the whole texas battle in the 1840s, john c. calhoun, etc., thought britain was conspiring to try to get texas when it was an independent republic to abolish slavery on its own. southern pro-slavery people were quite annoyed at what they felt was britain's meddling with slavery in the new world. so it was not at all clear that southerners really would see britain as a likely ally. on the other hand, as you know, of course, britain depended on southern cotton for its textiles. we'll get to that in a minute. but you seem to think it was a big mistake of seward and lincoln, i guess, not to emphasize slavery right at the beginning. at the beginning of the war, the administration said this is a war about union, we are not fighting to abolish slavery, we are not emancipating slaves. i get the impression that you feel that really made it impossible for the union to really get the kind of support in britain at the beginning that it might have. >> guest: oh, i really do believe that. and it wouldn't have taken that much for the secretary of stat

hostile to britain after britain abolished slavery in the 1830's, cahal texas battle in the 1840's, john c. calhounetc thought britain was conspiring to try to get texas when it was an independent republic to abolish slavery on its own and trying to get the spanish to abolish slavery in cuba and the southerner proslavery people were quite annoyed at what they felt was brinton's meddling with slavery in the new world is what was not at all clear the summers would at all clear the summers would see britain -- as more likely ally of the other hand as you know of course britain depended on the southern cotton for its textiles and we will get to that in a net. by using to think it was a big mistake of sewer and lincoln i guess not to emphasize slavery right at the beginning. at the beginning of the war the administration this was about the union. we are not fighting to abolish slavery or emancipating slaves. i get the impression that you feel that really made it impossible for the union to really get the kind of support of britain at the beginning that it might have. >> guest: i do believe that and it w