positive signals that whole year leading up -- we didn't get them all. one interesting comparison, they actually released a dying priest, the chinese in early 1971 as a signal. you compare that to the north koreaian dream of kenneth bae, who is also in ill health. that would be a very easy low-hanging fruit to show plate cat good will. hasn't happened. i'm afraid what dennis rodman is up to is probable my more to do with reviving his own career than anything else. >> well, thank you so much. >> here's a look at some books being published this week.
the revolt against the masses. our liberalism has undermined the middle cass in the second arab awakening in the battle for lurism, the vice president for studies at the car carnegie endowment for international peace presents a history of political change in the arar world. david culture recounts the relation between a pope and muss lean -- -- executive foreign editor of the daily telegraph details winston churchill's military service in afghanistan in 1890s in churchill's first war.
look for these titles in book stores stores and watch for the authors in the near future on booktv and on booktv.org. >> teachers are trying to close the gaps they're dealing with such a hard problem, and i write a disclaimer, saying this is making the assumption that no one is going to fix anything outside the school. no one is going to do anything about the poverty, racism, anything. can you close the gap just in the school? put all of the burden on the teachers and at the principals? so, they're not getting that message. that's not what the research is from the schools. the school is like, you have two kid, an inner city african-american kid and a white suburban kid, they can be at the same level when they graduate. when they come back in september, the white suburban kid gained one month of learning from the experiences and the inner city african-american kid has lost three months of
learning. so they're now four months apart in september. and the teachers happen different burdens. so this teachers done not they're getting a bad education, it's that the issues those teachers are facing are very different than the white sub urban teachers are facing. that kid is ahead of what the teach iris going to teach. the kid who is behind has to do this stuff all over again. so you can see how it's a very different challenge. we talking about outside the school. i did not find in the research and through all those years of meeting that the problem was actually what you were insinuating there, they were getting the wrong message in the school. it's what happens when they leave the school the next morning when they come home. >> let's talk about two things. you talk about the bad teacher. the road block teacher. what is that? >> guest: what we're talking about there is like there's a -- when you look at how powerful -- the number one thing is the
teacher. a great teacher, the one in the top 20th percentile. you get four great teachers in a low that teacher alone can close the gap. if it was possible for a. to be taught by the top 20%, that's all you have to do. that's how powerful they are. the very, very bottom group, the bottom two or three percent, they're causing so much pull so much damage, so much loss, that three or four decent teachers, good teachers in the mid can't overcome one child getting one of those teacher. >> host: how does the one do so much damage in a row of four? >> guest: the row of four -- let's just say in that thing the 60th percentile teacher, above the average, they're gaining a little bit, and so four in a row. if by chance you got four in a row of the 60th percentile,
you're gain, but the damage by the -- you're losing an entire grade with the one teacher. so that's what i'm referring to i do want to clarify one thing, though. that -- when you look at all the dat and the things that the book says, these are the things that you find that will close the gap. everyone goes to this thing. fire the teachers. that is not what the research says when i look at it impartially. if you said too me you can only do one thing, that's not the thing would do. you only do two things that's not what she research says. three things, still not the thing. that -- everybody's attention is on that. that's not what the research says is the thing that is pulling everything down. so, just want to -- you brought it up because you're -- it's the one that is most -- like, that's the one, and -- but i just want to make -- >> host: one of the five. >> guest: one of the five. >> host: i wasn't off base.
>> guest: balanced. >> host: i think you're argumentative but that's -- >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> rachel sheldon reports on the political atmosphere in washington, dc in the 1840s and 1850s robert thing personal relationships forged by many politicians of the day impacted legislative writing and left lawmakers prepared for succession, this is half an hour. >> so, i want to thank all of you for coming. it's great to see some familiar faces and some others, and it's great to be at one of my favorite book stores. i've been coming here a long time, so i appreciate the invitation. it's really appropriate for us to talk about the role of washington, dc here in the
capitol, in the midst of the sesquicentennial of the civil war. it commemorates 150 years of the with war. lasted four bloody years and captured the lives of more than 700,000 americans north and south. when we think about the civil war, it's typically with the sense of the divisive relationship between north and south and the violence that captured the nation well before the war began. machine from the north and men from the south became angry and angrier, challenging one another with words and with guns over the issue of slavery. and washington, dc is the epicenter of that discussion. when we think of the coming of the civil war, probably our most common picture is of the caning of charles sumner, an antislavery senator from massachusetts, by south carolina
congressman press ton brooks on the floor of the senate in 1856 and i'll talk about this in a minute. tonight i want to talk about how the picture of was as violent and divisive is actually misleading. instead the real key to understanding washington is to recognize that in many ways it operated more like a social fraternity...
first, it produced something like this social and political code in washington, a set of norms for political behavior that goes outside the capital city related matters and. even those people who really didn't like each other much tended to treat each other in the same way as you would imagine a fraternity to operate. you kept things in the family. second, the experiences of living on are often insulated politicians from the up side world. they understood the sectional conflict of the mid-19th century in the context of cross-sectional cooperation in washington. what this meant in this for the antebellum period was many
southern politicians were simply unprepared for the speed at which the session took hold in the winter of 1860, 1861. depending upon your view of washing and come you my code at the beltway mentality before the beltway even existed. i just want to highlight these two features the washington society in the 19th century cover the role of the social code of the language politicians are isolated with the couple is tories. hopefully i'll have some questions for me. so let me start with the social and political code of washington and particularly the code that existed in the cap will help. when we think about congressional policymaking in the 21st century, we generally think about capitol hill and maybe even the capital itself is the place for politicians of important speeches and hammer out deals. this may surprise you, but in the 19th century, almost none of that happened with the capital itself. there were a number of reasons
for this and i'm just going to focus on the house of representatives here to make my point easier to illustrate. in the antebellum period, the house of representatives averaged about 249. coming from all regions of the country. it was very hard to corral these men, attempted as a bird to speak of the house of representatives. it is sometimes hard to maintain a quorum. a majority of the members of the house. you could sort of get them to come in and take their seats. typically, except in cases of an important vote are very, very famous speaker you only have about two thirds of the house in session. the rest of the politicians were out of town where they were hanging out elsewhere in 10. many of the exciting bars and and other places in the area.
or they could be in the capital getting drunk at the whole of the wall, which is a little tavern in the basement of the capitol. if you are unlucky enough to get a seat at the back of the house, you probably couldn't hear what was going on. remember, there were no microphones in the mid-19th century. when you have that many people, you are not going to hear as well. the acoustics in the house were not very good. if you got one of the seats in the back, you were just of luck. those in the house of for also not necessarily paying attention. this is an important part of thinking about the way washington politicians understood what is around them. when you are living as a politician in the 19th injury, you did not have a staff the way you would today, pray i eat and how people taking care of your correspondence who are keeping in touch with your constituents. so you have to do all by
yourself, which meant that a lot of times it happened in the capital itself. people would write letters home. they would write letters to their wives. they wouldn't pay attention to what was going on on the floor. they would still be corresponding. if they didn't feel like listening, they would just talk to their neighbors or whatever they would want to do. congressmen didn't generally feel bad about ignoring the speeches because the real politicking did not happen in the capitalist south. as a result, most of what happened in the capital fell into a category of 19th century team that congressmen called outcomes each making, the origin of the word punk comes from this. the definition was basically giving a speech on a bill or an amendment they basically had nothing to do what was going on in the house itself, but was strictly made for the purpose of pleasing your achievements.
every congressmen in the 19th century made up of speeches, frequently. this was part of the experience of living in washington and ending the way things worked. he you wanted to please her pitcher, c. would make the speeches. in fact, it was the well ask what accept it that sometimes they would need to make the speeches. they would write them out and hand them over to the congressional record reporter and the reporter would put them in the congressional record. nobody complained about this because this was part of the experience of working in washington, working in the house. this is part of the congressional code. so we have to think about how washington operated as being out at the capital itself. one more important aspect of this washington fraternal code takes us back to charles sumner. i just want to remind you a little bit of the details of
charles sumner. it's a particularly colorful moments in our history. there have been much fighting in kansas as a result of the kansas act of 1854. in 1856, it had gotten particularly violent and charles sumner, a massachusetts senator got up in the senate and delivered a speech that was very much accusatory of the south. he called it the of kansas, the slavery number going into kansas and trying to influence the votes they are. he also said i'm pretty nasty things about a man named interpeak in butler, who was a senator from south carolina. butler's cousin was serving on the house at this time. he was a man by the name of press in berks. brooks did not take kindly to this. he did not hear the speech, but he read about it and thought this was a problem. so he decided to confront
sumner. sumner, completely unwittingly avoided works for some time. it just happened that they passed each other at times where berks couldn't go to speak to him and after a couple days of this, berks got very angry. he waited for sumner at the back of the senate and he went up to them once the galleries were clear and struck him over the head with his cane more than 30 times. sumner fell into the hideaway in the senate and had to leave the senate for some months to recover. so, this is a story that had long been told i sent him to proved how divisive washington was and certainly it became divisive outside of washington. it became divisive in the north and in the south. but if we look more closely at washington in this period, we can see it as part of a larger culture of violence and vice in
the capital that was not so shocking to the people who lived at that time. it was part of the social and political code i am talking about. since i mentioned, washington a sunny vacation destination. a thick rugby place to live in the 19th century. it's not her suitable for ladies. it was much more of a man's place. this made it much more of a fraternal experience. when engaging in drinking and gambling another raucous activities without the ads otherwise on them. just a couple example of this. we talked about the drinking in the capital, but they're a fair number of congressmen who drink in the house of representatives itself. if they felt like having a trained bother listening to speeches, they might have the page bringing some drinks. several congressmen were known for being drunk while serving, while speaking in preston burke in our story was also probably
drunk still from drinking very heavily the night before when he struck sumner. there was no substantial amount of organizing the two plays. some of the most famous congress intended in 19 century coming to dinner webs are in john t. calhoun were rumored to have women on the side. this is another example of how it it within the washington code, the political and social code. people did not talk about this. it was an all over cnn. this was sent and that people are kept within the family, within the fraternity. there were a number of tricks that have been washington. there were a number of examples of people getting involved with houses. one of my favorite examples may sound familiar to some of you, was between the wife of the man named daniel siegel, a new york democrat and the civil war in
the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia, phillip burton key. d.c. politicians try to keep this out of the papers. they didn't talk to anybody about it. it's not like reporters were reporting on what happened between these two lovers. the people whispered about it in washington and eventually equals handout. he accosted philip r. key in the middle of lafayette square, shot him and then turned himself in to the district attorney. he's very famous now for being the first person to be acquitted because of temporary insanity. this is a good example of how we can learn about this today, but it was something kept secret for a long time. as the story tells you, violence was a pretty regular part of the washington experience and not
just returning northerners southerners. some of you might be thinking southerners were the one who are more violent. not true at all. northerners are just as violent. one of my favorite tourist took place between william english, if democrats remain in a and william a montgomery county democrat from pennsylvania. montgomery was apparently unhappy about something because when he ran into english on 18th street, he refused to say hello to his former friend, exclaiming they speak to no puppy, sir. the lexicon in the 19th century. english didn't like his reaction. he was a slight man were my primary was about 200 pounds. so he lifted up his cane and smacked montgomery over the head with it. montgomery fell over and see in a loose brick on the ground, threw it at english and a gun into a pretty serious scuffle.
this is an example of northerners get involved. aunt took place in the house of representatives, just as the sumner, this would have been between several members of congress. one of the most famous examples is republican volusia grow out of pennsylvania and mesquite at a south carolina who became angry with one another on the floor of the house and they became so angry he produced a fistfight of nearly 30 people. they have been fighting for some time when an illinois representative by the name of elisha washburn took a swing at a fellow by the name of william barksdale, a democrat from mississippi, but he aimed a bit too high and william barksdale's wit went flying off his head. nobody in the house knew that he wore a week, so this was amusing. the house starts laughing uncontrollably and it's over. so what does this tell us?
this is a pretty common name in washington. there's a lot of violence, but it's part of the regular hearing. it happened in that it's over. this is the context in washington in which the chaining of charles sumner happen. it's not a situation where washington politicians become so angry with one another that they can't speak to each other. they're over it in about three days. not true elsewhere in the country, but in washington. the experience of washington politicians with the sumner brooks kendall also help us understand the second aspect of the washington fraternity and that is that politicians could be isolated from what was going on back home. although sumner and brooks were from the north and south respectively, the difference between the two places is not as dark in washington itself. what senators and congressmen came to washington, is almost
impossible to avoid becoming friendly with people around section. the washington community operated in such way politicians were forced into the regulars. dinners are overwhelmingly cross-sectional. both men and women that came to washington were required to purchase the system of washington socializing is part of the etiquette of the day. so if you were, for example, a member of the house of representatives, it was your duty to call and members the senate, cabinet members, justices of the supreme court and the president. he had to, and each of them and they had to call back on you. the result of this review had to get to know people. he had to have the opportunity to get to know people from all parts of the country. men were required to show up to
state dinners at a show of support for net. many would spend evenings dining together, particularly by william corcoran palace in washington, where they necessarily encountered men from all sections of the country. living arrangements of washington further highlighted this. hotels were never divided up between northerners and southerners. congressmen the depths and boarding houses were overwhelming across action all during this spirit come which meant that men who couldn't afford to live in a hotel booklet with other men from other sections who couldn't afford to live in a hotel. the result of this cross-sectional interaction with the development of a large number of cross-sectional friendships. these friendships didn't necessarily make men must committed to their home state for the section but it could cloud their ability to fully understand the anger that was coming out of the south in the
north and this time. just to give you a couple examples and then i'll let you asked him questions. abraham lincoln and the future vice president of the confederate v., alexander stephens became very good friends all working in washington. they enjoyed each others company and lincoln didn't know much of the south other than what he learned all working in washington was southerners who are willing to compromise and talk with him. jefferson davis guy future president of the confederacy qaeda member including the anti-slavery new yorker who's going to become the future secretary of state in the lincoln administration. seward was even rumored to have nurse jefferson davis back to health during one of his big elements. so these friendships and the washington next year and help explain why davis and others were so is prized by the speed
at which the session took called and the sadness in which they met, the end of the union or at least that they expected. there's a great scene at the end of all this be a jefferson davis saying goodbye in january 1861, holding up his things, walking out of the capital, weeping the entire way. it's not the picture rethink a jefferson davis. even jeb david sanders at this as a serious moment in a moment he was not necessarily expecting. what i want to leave you with tonight is this idea that washington was not the typical divisive and violent place that we think when we think of the coming of the civil war. in many ways it was the exception. it is the kind of place you could escape some of that divisiveness and as a result we cannot think about these people
is causing a civil war or are being emblematic of how the civil war came. thank you. [applause] i'd love to take some questions, but they've told me you need to use. so if anyone would like to use the microphone and asked the question, i'd be happy to answer it. all right. great soul. >> i have to confess this is really off topic, it's kind of illogical a logical question on the minds of a lot of people that is how did we get to the state we are in now. really rather than answering the political explanations for that command may be a battle of the history of when did this change seems like inflated into the xts there was plenty of socializing going on. i am not sure statistically
whether anybody knows now how much cross partisan socializing goes on. i am sure it among the dead. certainly by all accounts is a different world right now. tell us what you know about this. if you make 19th century was different from the 20th century and 21st century in terms of his experience is. the fact it is house all men makes it unique. i would say one of the things that is key about politicians and a 19th century as they live in washington for a long time together. they spend eight or nine months in washington at a time where they don't go home. if you're from texas he would go home because it was hard to get there. being forced into a situation where living together and interact in a nice way probably had an impact on the politicians of the 19th century. we have a much bigger government
allen and number people who work in washington. you could know 80% of the people who lived in washington at this time because it was only focus on the politics. and all us nothing else. there is a focus on what is going on in a social relationship in the 19 century. now washington is used shimmy of all kinds of other things are doing and as a result it is harder to get to know politicians to the same degree. i'm not sure whenever dowd. don't really know what's going on behind closed doors, but certainly looks different than how it did in the 19th century. >> unfortunately, i missed most of your presentation. i'm very serious about comparing where we are today to ancient civilization. i'm not think were civilized.
were supposed to be a civilized country, but we live with a very backward mentality for many, many things in many areas. i just came back from almost a month in turkey and are not think we've gone very far. this is my question to you. do you think we're a civilized country in the united states of america? >> it depends what you think civilized is here today to describe the 19th 19th century politicians is civilized. they were trash talking and drunk and all kinds of ilan at that time. best part of the problem. we've changed a lot the way we viewed our day-to-day experience. in the 21st century, people don't hit each other over the head with cane if they're not about something that they'll go to jail. not through the 19th century.
our perception has changed, which is why it's hard to understand the violent contacts in the 19 century because they think if it's violent, it must've been very angry as well. it was not so much in that direction. >> i've read ahead a little on your vote and i've also done some research in this period. if you could talk a bit about the difference is perhaps in the peep hole and the status if you were a calvert anywhere in the house of representatives that your family was nearby, the your family was here. you are status and irresponsibility was different because you have family and you also had a house and you had people over a lot. so could you talk about the difference with the influence and what goes along with it when
you have your family here and when you're just a guy in the mass. >> excellent question. one of the things about dean is visible politician in century with family or just with your wife is that you have more requirements to get involved with washington society. your wife also had to participate in this complicated calling system only to a greater extent even. you are going to be much more visible. you are going to host parties and dinners they generally people would invite people from both factions. jedi they would focus more in one party. if you're a democrat come here much more likely to invite democrats. not sure of everyone who lived in washington. i mention william corcoran. william corcoran was a famous socialite, banker, someone who contributed to washington.
i'm sure you're all familiar with the corcoran gallery. he was one of the most committed to a cross-sectional washington community. in part because he knew his livelihood depended on it. @as he was able to keep the country together he could make some money, how his friends be on good terms with people from both sides of the country. the he tried to facilitate a cross-sectional interaction, which is why he always invited people from both sides to his house. you never passed about corcoran's. he had best food and for the people who lived in boarding houses in particular, you had some pretty nasty males on a day-to-day basis, so you never passed at a dinner at corcoran. a lot of this is about getting involved as possible, which allowed you to stay longer, allowed you to have more influence, allowed you to get to know people. hope that answers your question.
>> hi. i have to things i want -- they're not really questions are there more things i'm curious to get your thoughts on. i think you make some really fantastic and important points. so i remember that in the boat,, he resent the about jefferson davis was instrumental in getting the capitol dome built and how interesting this was a paradox at the time the country appears to be falling apart, that it is this sort of testament to the strength of the union is going up in being driven largely by the most southerner country in southern southerner fall. in relation to god, what is your telling us about the coming of the civil war if anything? it differs only in that? pc net? does washington really drop the ball and maybe there's something they could have done about it? maybe get your thoughts on that.
>> i would say that the key to your second question is washington couldn't prevent the civil war. they are not responsible for it necessarily, although some of those spoken speeches contributed to some of the anger. but they couldn't prevent it. it was more a grassroots movement by people reject the political system. particularly rejecting the political system that jefferson davis had been apart of. you hear the rhetoric today that we've got to get rid of washington insiders. same thing in the 19 century. washington insiders are the worst thing to happen to our country. i would say they didn't so much dropped the ball as they were oblivious to the wall. nhi to create peace. they tried several times to create some sort of compromise before the civil war came. but they weren't able to actually do anything about it.
jefferson davis is a great example of the washington community. he's basically a career politician. he's very much committed to washington society, has all kinds of friends from all kinds of places and is very much interested in building on now for the future. there aren't that many people in the 19 century who are going to be around forever in washington. jefferson davis was planning on it. this is really an important moment for him in the sense that it is the death of every name he believes then. so this explains a little bit i was able to make the transition to the confederacy because if his political system has died cummings got replaced with something else. it's a really sad moment for him. >> my question is what role do you think the washington brotherhood plate and reconciliation after the war whether it be jefferson davis
lived out his life with no child's? does that kind of continue after the war? to the kind of comeback? >> it does continue after the war. he continues during the war, which is some pain. it does continue after the war. there is a willingness among politicians that existed before the war to reconcile because people are willing to use the unified against me, but we knew each other back then. of course the civil war brings an enormous number of new politician to washington you don't know about the washington code. after some of the division exists. there are some examples of people before who are willing, but most especially the republican comes to washington after the civil war, so they don't know these guys, which does have an impact. other questions?