which means, in point of fact, that we come to thaddeus stevens in the weeks before he died. he felt a deep sense of failure, not at the failure to convict johnson, but his believe that reconstruction as it had been set up, was not strong enough, not good enough, would not last. to a reporter he would say, my only regret is that i have lived so long and so uselessly. is there a moral to all of this? well, there has got to be a everything. and the answer to that is, in that time since, there are no final victories. the battles in america must be fought over and over again. it has always been that way through my lifetime, my parent'' lifetime, and their parents' lifetime. we need to remember, in fact, that not just then, but in all times, in all ages, it is a never-ending task to see that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. thank you. [applause] mark: i guess we have time for questions. what would you like to know? askinget, i feel awkward a question at a conference i'm running, but i have a two-part question. the first is t

people were afraid of thaddeus stevens. they were afraid to debate with him in congress because he was so quick, he was so incisive, and he'd just leave them gasping on the floor with a quick repartee which would make everybody else laugh. so, he was a powerful guy within congress simply by force of personality and talent. he was devoted to the abolitionist cause. he was an inveterate hater of slavery and he believed in equality in all things. so, he in many ways the heart and soul of the reconstruction effort that built in congress and ultimately the impeachment effort. brian: what do you think president johnson at that time saw in thaddeus stevens and how big a story was it that he lived with a woman who was an african-american, who was supposedly his housekeeper but through the years people have suggested that they had some kind of a relationship that no one has ever proved and that he wasn't married. david: mrs. smith. the mrs. smith story has never been confirmed that it was a personal relationship, but i always though

it was the brainchild of thaddeus stevens.y knew in congress, the republicans who were opposing johnson, they knew that he was scheming against stanton and that he was firing lots of employees. this was a hero of tremendous patronage. republicans had one the 1856 election. all of their officeholders were they are. there. he was replacing them with democrats. the whole point of winning was to get the jobs. they adopted the tenure of office act to make it impossible for him to do that. it focused on this elipses in the constitution. i sort of love this. the constitution is how you appointed these cabinet officials. it doesn't say anything about how you get rid of them. when the first congress was setting up the government, they got wrapped around the axle on this. they had a lot of trouble figuring out how to do this. there was an argument that it should be the mirror image of the appointment process, that you should remove the president by having them tell the senate, i want to get rid of john smith, and the senate would have t

david: it was enacted to be in his way, the brainchild of thaddeus stevens.hey knew in congress that republicans who work opposing johnson -- were opposing johnson, they knew he was scheming against stanton, firing lots of patronage employees. this was an era of tremendous patronage. republicans won the 1864 elections, so all of their officeholders were there, and he was replacing them with democrats, driving them nuts. the whole point of winning was to get the jobs. they adopted the tenure of office act to make it hard for him to do that, and it focused s in thellipsi constitution. the constitution is clear how you appoint senior cabinet officials, the president appoints, the senate confirms. it doesn't say anything about how you get rid of them. when the first congress was setting up the government, they got wrapped around the axle on this. they had a lot of trouble figuring out, how should we do this? there was an argument it should be the mirror image of the appointment process, you remove by having the president say i want to get rid of john smith, and t

what one thing could they have done that would have made thaddeus stevens feel better a few days before his death? what did they miss that could actually be done by the radical republican congress? driving it from a legislative perspective, what could those guys have contributed realistically, that they didn't? >> let me offer one suggestion. i've lived my life in two worlds. teaching constitutional law, history and now being president of the college which is a different life experience. of the failure of is a failure of imagination on the part of northern republicans. ,hat is, northern republicans whether they were crude and tough like bluff ben wade, as he was known, and when challenged for a duel in the 1850's he said i accept which northerners never did and said i think i have a right to choose a weapon. and he said i will choose a swirl just squirrel gun at 10 paces and that ended the duel, because know what is going to do -- nobody was going to do that. so whether you are a big frontiersman like him who was rough and tumble, or as refined and sophisticated as charles sumner, i thi

he says why not thaddeus stevens? he openly advocated for the execution of one of his own party members. that is such political suicide. i don't understand how the person could think that is a good idea to say. you could impeach him on all of these things. imagine telling a northern crowd that we should hang northern republican congressman instead of those who committed rebellion against the union. i am glad you brought that up. he engages in shouting matches with northern republicans. attempt to play the race card does not really work. this is what the north is seeing. you see it is a cowering back -- black family. they have the kkk and the white league. these are organizations being formed in 1866. already, other x confederates are forming these white vigilante groups to terrorize black people into submission. league withwhite all confederate uniforms and the kkk are joining hands. you can see a cowering black family. johnson's motto -- this is a white man's government. here is a black man hanging from a tree. there

he says why not thaddeus stevens? i don't understand how the president could even think that was a good idea to say. professor sinha: whether that was stupidity or racism, it could have been all of those things. there is this notion that we should hang northern republican congressman instead of confederates who have committed rebellion against the union. i am glad you brought that up. that is what happens. he engages in shouting matches with the northern public but somehow his attempt to play the race card does not go well. this is what the north is seeing. a blackthis side, it is family. it has the kkk. these are organizations being formed in 1866. other x confederates are forming these white vigilante groups in terrorize black people into submission. withee a white leader parts of an old confederate uniform and kkk members joining hands. johnson's motto was the union as it was, this was a white man's government. lyncheda black man, hanging from the tree, a black schoolhouse being burnt. this is what the north is see