tv The Presidency White House History Design CSPAN August 27, 2018 6:58pm-8:03pm EDT
of staff, anita mcbride, and white house historical association president on presidential legacy. the white house historical association presidential site summit. live coverage on tuesday and wednesday. up next on the presidency, the design history of the white house and how it was influenced by british and irish connections. this program was part of a daylong symposium hosted by the white house historical association. >> thank you so much for sticking it out and i want you to know this is your chance to ask the questions of the scholars and experts. i want to say that i have no
background in history or scholarship. i am just a reporter but i really have had the privilege of a rental-- front row seat walking up the driveway a few months after i graduated from college as a news intern and retiring 40 years later from abc news late in the obama administration. while the seven presidents that i covered were across everything from the cold war to the digital revolution, to be able to look at the house and look up at the doorways at the scottish roses and the architecture around each window and to watch the sun bring in a pink light in the morning or be
there after midnight after some kind of crisis including walking out of the driveway on september 11, 2001 when i had been on air force one for 10 hours, allowed to stay with the president that day. the white house represents to me a bigger and broader american character. i want to begin the questioning if i could, not all of you have to answer anything, but the irish brought the great idea that when the white house was built, it was not to represent any one of the 13 colonies. it had to speak to a national character. when we look at the white house, what is it about the white house that is so distinctly american? >> the first thing is the journalist whose name was willis , he was right-- quite
reputable that his pallbearers were led by longfellow. he was serious. he wrote a short description on the white house that he described as being ultimately a sufficient measure of space for the republic. too much was an assertion. essentially what washington had in mind all the time was that these states could usually fracture and later on it was effectively to say that washington converted-- it was a compact into a constitution that is a definition of a nation which applies to individuals. instead of passing back through the states the constitution affected individuals directly.
>> real quickly, you know the roots in dublin. when you look at the white house what do you see that is uniquely american? >> it's an interesting question because focusing on the irish, i think what we see that was modeled on obviously it's the government that an image of in terms of how it's expressed or how it expresses an american identity, in a way there's a
relative modesty in terms of the scale of it which was obviously smaller than originally intended. something about that decision to create this that was in many ways a beginning. one big exploration we are going to get to, when you look up at the white house do you have a thought about what it is with all the elements that have brought to it from ireland and the united kingdom, what you see that is uniquely american? >> i see a republican building because very clearly as i was suggesting is that the ability in england were chosen very deliberately this particular
style which has been based on the writings and very clearly were anti-royalist and very much stated as republican ideals. one thing he did not state was what that was intended to be. it was almost certain he had romances ideal and they were taken off by that ability who was closely associated with the cause. the whole point about the turbulent times toward the end of the 17th century is that there was a choice between sticking with identities that were selected by parliament. effectively you have a clear political dimension and architecture.
i see that being repeated very clearly when washington came to make his choice. >> i'm going to open this up to questions from the audience. can you raise your hand if you have a question? we will try to be handed-- come on. i know that this crowd is much better. we have one question in the front. could you wait until we get a microphone to get the audio clearly recorded as well? >> i want everyone to remember that the house that george washington originally approved was a french palace and not a british background. he designed a quirky house like that and i don't think it was ever finished. that's what washington-- his palace. there wasn't a
lafayette square. it was a driveway, a roadway, 20 feet higher than the tallest on the planet. do you get a lot of-- to the white house and can you turn them down?. >> an advisory committee. we refer them to this group of specialists to help us determine whether it's appropriate. >> we have a question over here.
i'm a high school history teacher and i'm always talking to students regarding the city that they live around and interact in. i have a question for dr. seale for dr. but the white house as you spoke was a symbol of republican government. over the years, how the white house has balanced as of late it being a seat of power but also the house for the people, there are famous stories of andrew jackson and anyone can come up and see the white house and interact. in the age of security and those things, do you think the white house now, in the last since september 11, maybe, have balanced the idea of it being accessible to everyone? and was that its original intent
? did they intend for the people -- >> it wasn't open to the public until april 1801. you can go in the house and look at the paintings so he started that. it's more difficult today so one of the jobs is to cross the barrier from the public to the house and it's possible to make people know about the house because as we all know, it's a way of life. i would say that is the status of it. it is hard to get them but they do the best they can.
can i see your house? he said why not, it's your house. it showed the east room only. they had done it all over diplomatic, and at the kennedy administration, everyone wanted to see eisenhower. when you talk about 1 million a year or 2 million going through that house, there was great sensitivity in sound and would try to take a nap. the steel in the house would vibrate. i think the best is being done
that could be done. generation clay and all of those , he liked that. he quickly rescinded and the public was infuriated. >> in the context of when it was built, the great country estates, the country leaders and an island they were-- and ireland they were trying to create similar states as well as in great britain. even at that time it was walled off separate from the public. washington at mount vernon was plagued by a constant stream of visitors all through his life
weather coming back from the revolutionary war or confederation period or presidents, there was an expect tatian that was private but is also public. it's a strange balancing act is open and accessible and you are supposed to be able to encounter the leading citizens as long as you are a respectable individual. you should be able to call upon george washington and james madison within limits. certainly they did not anticipate what happened, this is-- security issues as though it was alluding to overtime but it was always a balancing act.>> we have a question back here. thank you so much.
>> the question i've been trying to have answered since 1963. obviously by all account-- i counts the white house is a lovely building. the metal doors on the north side of the white house are quite on the white house-- belong at the entrance of a sears roebuck store. why do they throw off the white house duties so much? why are they there? >> they are descendents from earlier. in the bad weather, it was to keep the weather based on a great cubicle and as security functions from the 50s, right
lidia? if they did such a good job on the handicapped ramp like it you would least paint that line? . lidia is going to change that. -- lydia tederick is going to change that. >> i can tell you that security has made a huge difference in how the white net -- white house has welcomed visitors over the ark of 40 years. they've said this is the people's house but after september 11 tourers were called off and there's an elaborate procedure where they get hundreds of people who are allowed to come in and often, when president bush welcomed the pope i believe they brought 10,000 people who had to stand
through the whole several our process but at least they got people in their. >> what happened is there has been an evolution-- evolutionary change. it didn't much matter. it matters now because we live differently and as we live differently the buildings to continue to be useful, have to accommodate these things. there's no reason why modern technology cannot be used. in a case like that it would be possible to incorporate screens that would not normally be visible but technically perfectly acceptable and these could be brought down when required. these possibly date back to the 1950s. it is time that a conservation policy was adopted in relation to bringing up to date in terms
of the evolution because it is about evolution of use and buildings, retaining historical significance. it's not about preserving them as such. it was an acceptable solution to put something as clumsy as that. i think it's time for conservation to move along through the building. >> you've done restoration. do you have to balance public good or can you be true to history? >> my house was owned by-- by the government. it was open to the public every day. when i bought the house from the government i made it a condition that we would allow public access but it would be on our terms. in other words, people could not just turn up every day.
the demand is such that one has to be careful because we allow groups who are particularly interested in that period about architecture because we find the demand so great that allowing every other group to come every day, we would be inundated and it's very hard. the people, the curators who really want to be there to answer questions and have a genuine interest-- interest, they get a lot out of it. could i say one other thing about the white house, to me being involved in irish- american relations is that it soon became clear to me that when i became involved in the white house, we had this tremendous access. every year the president, vice
president and speaker, it was everything to us that america had a very big role in irish- american and great british relations. the white house was terribly iconic and it is. other areas are of-- of government are verily-- very jealous and what's it like. it's wonderful you have a building that has this history and the history continues to live. you suddenly put it into security can-- reasons it would be awful. >> thank you all so much. i'm curious because i've been
so impressed whenever i've gone to england, at their ability to preserve documents, preserve paintings and buildings, and i think we are doing a great job of that here. i wondered since so many of you are historians curators and preservationists, how you think we will all do moving forward and if this is an exciting time for you or a challenging time. >> from the white house, it sends a huge political message of optimism. you just look at the buildout that followed afterwards. in terms of conservation, we haven't always had that optimism that you've had. we conserve our history beautifully that we are not,
sometimes, brave enough. there are things such as the home of president. roosevelt , the amazing center around that of deprivations of the 1920s or when america was isolationist. some of those things that have been done have really inspired the highest a policy. i think sometimes in britain we need to look for more inspiration on what you have achieved with your many great historical places. >> it's a fascinating question because this idea of conservation and one of the best definitions that i got was management of change and that acknowledgment that things must evolve and change.
i think in ireland similarly we have a mixed record but i think the-- there is this emerging attitude. it's part of dublin city council offices. we have people with workstations working. it's a typical office. i think someone mentioned the beautiful staircase there which they've bolstered with reinforced concrete because they were afraid it would be damaged. i think we are looking at doing that but also with the digital age, one thing i have found is the amazing availability of historical material that is online now and
historical and archival footage. students that i'm teaching, the knowledge that is there is a hugely beneficial side to this kind of change and digitization. >> did you want to add on to this? >> documents speak to me. the great thing about when i work in the national archives, you can spend 10 or 12 hours there doing that sort of thing. the accessibility is very good and that's important to someone who has to travel and only has a certain amount of time. the advantage of great written is that we go back to having
magna carta and so forth. it is not a hugely rich country and has over 1000 years to conserve and produce for edification. the difficulty there is not the will but sometimes resources. it's interesting to go back and forth. family history is accessible at both sides, looking at the great documents, the bill of rights and so forth, is accessible on both sides. it is a wide range that you have to take on when you go to great britain whereas the focus here is on a smaller range that goes very deep and i like the difference. >> just a tactical point because you mentioned a bit about buildings and the use of buildings which is something we were talking about over lunch.
something i had come across, it was probably 50 years in development and the science behind collection care which has been promoted by organizations like english heritage and others tend to look after buildings that are not occupied. it's something going greatly and certainly in the collections that i look after his the care of objects in working places. it is not something greatly developed and is different to care about houses that are not lived in because you want people to be able to use the furniture. you want fires to be burning in the fireplaces. you want heating to be at the right level. all of those things we want and functioning
houses, it is that particular science in its infancy and is gaining science behind it but it is very much experimental. >> that's the point of course. it's a working house where many things are done. you have to regulate public access and the way that people access is it and who accesses it. one gets criticism because you can't afford it to everyone but you try to educate the best that you can and the people receptive to that try to encourage those institutions that will benefit from it. that's what we do in a more
regulated way. >> i just want to say it helps to educate the staff that work with you as well. we tried to hold handling sessions and make sure that when everyone picks up a chair they need to pick up a seat. everything like that helps but in a house that is partly a museum, it can be very frustrating at times. >> we have a question and then two more over here.>> it always comes-- >> my question was the fact that it always comes up at these symposiums, criticism of the truman redecoration. he probably would not have been allowed to tear it out if the
material had been better maintained. mrs. kennedy's redecoration i applaud. i take issue with her comment that it looked like a run down hotel given the fact that at that time, williamsburg had opened in the late 30s, early 40s. americans were using reproduction furniture and or tossed aside and donated to museums. the truman administration gets a bad rap for using these and also you go back to the 1902 renovation with theodore roosevelt. the same thing existed. the furniture that was a conjured up version of what they thought may have been there existed in many other rooms. i'd like your comment on-- actually i'd like to never hear
again about how badly the trim was. they did a good job>> there were two other hands. >> my question is a little bit different. we are looking at historical perspectives and the stonemasons cutting. bill or anyone, but i think bill is most likely to answer, where they assisting the stonemasons and carrying very heavy stones? >> as a matter of fact, a slave could take the job in conjunction with the master and got part of the pay. what the scots did not like is the
apprentice boys. these were brats and their on the job they slept late and there were advertisements all over the newspapers. a boy ran away and the freed slaves, 100 were hired to clean the big mound that i talked about. some of those people could have gone out and been freed and gone out in the world as stone makers. only one came up in kentucky. i think he came from here but they were very much in evidence. there were in fact agents in
washington that one could go through and they called them hands. they would say i need 20 good hands so the owner of the slaves was dealt with and that's how the system went. >> could i ask a second question? >> we ask one question. we ask 2 questions. >> enough already. was there an age difference between them? i go to st. john's church and he was revered there. indicator house they were designed by him as well and who evidently was difficult to deal with. was there an age difference? was one more mature? i know
that there was a portrait-- portrait of him at the white house at mount vernon with the washingtons, so i just wanted to understand how he was-- how he was not well thought of. >> it's an interesting question on the basis that i think is real problem was twofold. he had a temperament and he lost his temper very easily. he was good, he was competent but as a personality he was bourgeois. he was between the aristocracy and the peasantry. he was in between the two. it was a popular rising status in france and england.
the architecture was shifting from the idea of a co- partnership, that was the old order where you had the gentleman master, and in fact he did know what he wanted. you had the person who delivered to him without telling him what he wanted. on the other hand you had latrobe coming in fully educated and who simply wanted someone to put him in a position. he would interpret the portrait. the subject matter would be washington but the portrait would be latrobe. the other was working as an amanuensis to washington and it was a genuine partnership. at that time he was easy-going and a person who wanted to please. everyone says that of him. also he was a person who was trained. he had no great
interest in pushing the boundary of architecture but it was a status, it was a business, it was something he did. if you look at all the correspondence between everybody you will find that he eventually offends everybody. he just can't keep it. he's given the opportunity and shown the way to the top of mount olympus but he can't claim it. he doesn't have the ability to get up there. you can say it's stupid but i don't think it is. he was out of transition. that's how he found himself. a generation later latrobe would have been recognized as an architect in the sense of instead of having a partnership you have one person producing them and that's the fundamental
that lies between them. he was roughly a contemporary. >> we have another question here . >> here's a question for mr. king. mr. byrd, i'm sorry. -- mr. bird, i'm sorry. >> there is a rufus king in american history i'm sorry. >> when we have a change of administration the first lady assumes a curatorial role of where things are displayed and maybe bringing in some new art. to what extent is the queen a curator or involved in the cure ration of her collection and how does she interact with the collection itself? >> she is very much involved in
displays and is very much aware of what is around, any changes that are made of. on the whole she has lived and enjoyed living in her home and particularly, the rooms-- familiarity. it's a private collection. you would expect a degree of involvement. it's very hard to say exactly what the involvement is because her rain is so long-- because her rule was so long and few acquisitions have been made toward the end. in many ways, it is just as you would expect, a private collect the-- collector of a country house perhaps in great britain.
>> how accurate is the crown? that all looked pretty realistic to you? >> again i wasn't there. left-- i wasn't there. >> the public had these incredible exhibitions. i don't know whether any of you got there but the exhibition that contained-- which someone like myself had never seen. i was in the royal family has made the collection available to the people on a wider basis. >> i have several more questions. i think we have enough to get all of you.>> i have a question
for brian and by the way i could have listened to you forever. i was fascinated by your story of james who you described as an irish catholic peasant, a carpenter, and then he went on to this wonderful architectural school and was able to come to the united states. what were the circumstances that enabled him to move to the architectural school? was it a system in place that would have enabled that to happen? >> at the beginning of the 18th century which was a time of philanthropy when organizations and societies were being set up in the interest of mankind. agricultural theories were being improved. it was a con-- it was a contest that everything could be
improved. you had an aristocracy who would contribute to this and the way they did that was to create a society and by the middle of the 18th century they will have decided that they would create a school for drying which would include a school for drying and architecture. they had a provision where they would admit-- admit as many boys as the society would decide and where appropriate, they would not have to pay fees. this would be on the basis of ability and talent. they would not accept people who wanted to come for academic purposes. they would only vote for improvement of people in the system. the idea was to increase improve and build on talent and they would admit by application
and consider applications that came in and decide whether this person was a worthy in terms of a talented ability to be given a place in the school. as far as we know he paid for it because he does not appear on any admission lessons that would have let him in as a free boy. once they have that they spend three years. the masters could take them as not a print and sit-- not apprentices, but support labor. it was quite a strict regime. this was their and it was really a benevolent society. ireland and england were full of those. i think they come from the fact that there was so much dissent and religious minorities who looked after themselves that they created their own charitable institutions. you had a development that did not occur anywhere else, and
institution for health and education that were seen as being from the public benefit. my guess is that he had already had his sights on america as the new world. he could achieve the american dream, he did. and he was, as you say, a catholic peasant who took the first step. these did not go against him. he did join the freemasons which was like a general club and a very interesting aspect. the way in which freemasonry work and the series of removing social barriers. it all worked for him but that was broadly speaking. >> is what-- it was modeled where tuition was free.
the other thing that is a possibility is that his parents were tenant farmers the course estates and they were quite an influential family in 18th- century island-- ireland. it's very possible there were connections there and the fact that he trained as an apprentice as a carpenter and a wheel right, he would have built up an association with the family, a close association. it was possible that there was work for him moving to dublin. that's an aspirational jump to make that and move from those
humble oregon-- origins. >> some of them were house servants. when the last one died, they went into the courts in london. there were two of them in the households. that would have provided some privilege i'm sure.>> definitely. >> we have a couple more questions that we will try to get in. >> my question, i don't know if this is the right forum, but we spent most of the day speaking about historical periods. it occurs to me that the architecture would have been seen as bracingly modern relative to other houses though neo classically inspired.
the post war period is such an important period of innovation and has now approached history. the national trust is starting to acquire modern houses. is there an interest in white house collections of incorporating important historic modern artifacts? >> there were some contemporary paintings acquired during the last administration by thomas and others. we have an advisory committee again that helps us determine what we can collect but we also, as part of our collection policy, are not able
to acquire works by living artists. they have to be deceased by 20 years. >> frank lloyd wright and others have been dead a long enough time. >> gentleman in the second row. >> the basis of evolution 50 years from now but of the presidents and the first lady's. we want to encourage them to collect 50 years from now. >> we have one right here in the center. >> this has been a fascinating day. it was not always a given that the federal government would be located here. the most famous dinner in american history with jefferson
and hamilton trading off the location and banking and financial reforms. how would the white house have been different had it been located in philadelphia or new york? any speculation? >> do you want to take this? >> i mean i don't have to. two houses were built in new york and one in philadelphia and george washington would never enter either one of them. even mrs. powell who he adored tried to get him through the front door and he wouldn't. more is known about the one in new york but philadelphia had rotund as in chairs. the last minute they thought it would
work. those houses are what they would have looked like. one became a medical college and the other was just, in new york style, just torn down. there are good records of those houses. >> i'm told we have to wind down but i'm-- but kind of those last questions. looking forward, i will start with you. 100 years of-- from now what will the white house be like? it will still house a president and her husband or whoever, but what can you imagine a white house in the future?
i want each of you to give a prediction even on any of the treasured homes and artwork. >> i suspect that the white house will probably look pretty much the way that it does today. there might be renovations and modernizations but don't you think that abraham lincoln would show up and still recognize the white house?>> it would be slicker than he knew it. washington saw it completed except for the porches but the secret service in my 40 years of it, the secret service, the park service, all of those people exert themselves keeping it looking the same and looking well-kept as the home of the president. they are not going to take that
off. >> unless some tragedy happens, then i think it would be built back. >> when you think of all of the great houses, do you think 100 years from now we will have this kind of treasure? >> i like to think so because the white house is the home of the president. it's where all the great states go to in america. it's the iconic center but it's not the actual center. it's the center of the american government being the presidents home. i would have liked to have thought that that would still be there, and also the white house historical association with that to help you deal with all the things that you do.
through their research and things like this, you might be able to purchase or access it so they can evolve over 100 years and be the iconic building for the american nation that it is. they could say other buildings i'm unfamiliar with would be likewise. >> my duty today was to provide the backdrop to everyone else's discussions about objects and paintings. the building of the white house and so forth, that is not my main line. what i look at is the relationship. it is not a given or determined by god. the relationship between leaders doesn't matter
as much as people sometimes think it does. it doesn't matter, or if leaders get together. what is important as much as anything is the next layer down. people get in the habit of working with other people and leaders come and go. on the whole, those bureaucracies or if you look at the military and the navy, the british and americans worked together. they know each other. they know their kids. they know there is a common history. sometimes one wonders when you look at disparity of power, empires don't stay but for quite a time the united states will be supremely powerful but they need someone to talk to.
the english language is important. the shared ideas and the fact that the supreme court decisions sometimes quote magna carta. these things are important. the political cultures are incredibly different. i think people make a mistake thinking the countries are very much alike but there are shared values, language, and history. not necessarily shared jokes. there's a different approach but nevertheless there is enough to tie the two countries together. i would expect to see the white house fall down if buckingham palace falls down.>> i'm amended-- i'm reminded of 1000 years of that particular building which has changed so
much. while i believe firmly that the white house will continue, but as you are saying earlier about what her majesty studied in ireland that we should not be bound by our history. we have organizations such as the national trust which are very much taken toward preserving collections and buildings and having a historically minded up coach which is excellent and good but at the same time we have to make that balance right and just to see, buckingham palace for that matter which is a considerably smaller house. evolution is incredibly important to stay alive.>>
edward lengel? >> touching on the same seem i don't know what the white house will be 100 years from now but i know something of what i would like it to be. i had an interesting moment last week. i gave a talk at a pub about presidential pets. someone asked, is there somebody designated to chase after the dogs and cats to make sure they don't jump onto the furniture? i said that's a good question. thinking about the state rooms and how nicely preserved they are, they should be properly preserved and i thought, if fido choose on the leg of the sofa you are in big trouble. but it brought me back to, there's a wonderful passage in the book the presidents house. i can't remember how you put it but you talked about how the
white house used to be nice-- used to be like, a ramshackle, intimate home where things were changing constantly. you knew that people lived there and pets jumped off of the sofa. you knew there was hair everywhere and things that changed. now it has become something different. in the process of preservation something is walled off. i would like to see the balance of the work that lidia and her team do but preservation with more of the lived in feeling. a little more of the domestic feeling. >> looking forward. >> the theme of change. i imagine again that to facilitate change a few people of mentioned, it's absolutely critical to the survival.
i think in terms of conservation and conservation practices, things are getting more sophisticated which would help. i would imagine that a building 800 years from now could be robust as it is now but it's a critical thing of allowing it to change and evolve. being on a wonderful tour, jefferson's idea of allowing the public in i think is wonderful. i was standing outside with the group waiting and the excitement of getting to see inside, communication and research and awareness of the wonderful
building that it is. i hope that education continues. >> all modern conservation policy that is now international is that the first thing you determine is the significance of something and then you protect the significance while you allow the object to revolves. proportionately you do not allow the-- allow the significance to alter. the policy that has been adopted is that the exterior will not be changed. even when it came to truman, truman was not having that. he did alter the inside considerably and where he fell down, winslow wanted to reuse and replace all of the materials taken out. this would not allow truman to depart from the white house so his approach was forget about that stuff.
most of it was dumped, it went off to him sort of military dump and all kinds of new materials were brought in. what has happened since then is that it has required a new association with all that has happened that with regards of going back to washington, what has not changed-- i should not say washington. the beginning of andrew jackson's presidency and the gallery, the gallery is to the south. when those were completed, nothing much has changed since then. if you ask what is significant, the answer has been said by several people. icon is a greek word for an image which is a reflection of what you see yourself. when the world looks at the
white house it sees america and when americans look at it they see themselves. once you change that and then in fact you have altered the significance. i think the answer technically is there's no reason why it should change in 100 or 200 years. it's capable of meeting-- being maintained. all of that is protectable. with regard to the inside the answer was not picked up earlier, the whole issue about the inside and the changes that have occurred.>> i'm going to cut you off and how appropriate that the last word goes to church l. >> the whole place of the white house is to meet people. hundred years since, technology will take all of us away. what you are really-- what you will really enjoy-- and joy, and i
feel really proud, is three portraits of the lady presidents of the united states.>> i will ask the panel to stay seated. thank you very much. >> enormous thanks to and-- anonymous things to anne-- think it to her for superb moderating. on behalf of the white house historical association we've been working on this for well over a year and you wonder how you are going to get and how it's going to sort out. this is scholarship, practical experience, family connections and deep and abiding lengths. we could not have expected anything this good so thank you to all of you from all of us.
before we adjourned there is a reception as you see. there is irish music awaiting you and we will introduce you to the musicians. we would be remiss not introducing you to the piper because he has really been putting in the work today. stewart mentioned earlier the 10% discount in our shop. i want to add that we are sharing this but we have both-- we both have cufflinks. you are going to be books-- be doing book signings, aren't you? buy a book and buy a cufflink. in any case, thank you all for joining us. it has been a good day together so please join us in the reception.
history tv normally only seen on weekend 's on cspan3 but we're showing its weekdays while the congress is on break. the relationship between george washington and alexander hamilton and how close hamilton the musical is to the truth. and beth and harry trueman before their marriage. and later a look at the history
of the white house building and its design. on tuesday and wednesday, a special edition of american history tv on cspan3. with live coverage of the white house historical association's presidential sight summit. our live coverage from the willard hotel starts at 5:00 a.m. eastern both days. tuesday at 9:00 a.m. eastern, barbara perry, jeffrey engel, jeffrey rosen, mark odegrove and cokie roberts. and the former white house executive pastry chef. wednesday at 9:00 a.m. eastern, mike mcclury, kenneth walsh, susan page and john mitchum. at 12:30 p.m. eastern, lbj foundation
president mark epengrove, anita mcbride. live coverage tuesday and wednesday on cspan3. up next on the presidency. historian peter enriquez talks about the relationship between george washington and alexander hamilton. he discusses why their collaboration was important in founding the nation. gatsby's tavern museum hosted this hour long event. my name is liz williams and i'm the director here at gatsby's tavern museum. thank you for braving the elements outside. thank you for joining us tonight and i would also like to welcome our cspan crew as well. you're sitting in the