United States Senate
 GO
United States Senate Senators HomeCommittees HomeLegislation & Records HomeArt & History HomeVisitor Center HomeReference Home
United States Senate
People
Origins & Development
Senate Stories
Art & History Exhibits
Decorative Art
Paintings
Sculpture
Graphic Arts
Oral History Homepage


  
 
 
Address by Robert C. Byrd, September 15, 1998

Senator Byrd is welcomed to the Old Senate Chamber by Senators Tom Daschle (left) and Trent Lott (right).

View the Video

Introduction by Senator Trent Lott

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the third lecture series that the leaders have been sponsoring. I think this will be one of the most interesting ones we will ever have. We have had three this year and we hope to have three more next year.

When the idea was first suggested that we have some further attempt to preserve the history of the Senate, that we had a unique time in history because we had such a large number of former Vice Presidents and former leaders of the Senate that were still in the Senate or alive, that we should take advantage of this opportunity, of course, the first person that came to my mind as I thought about how to put this together was Senator Robert Byrd because I knew that he, probably more than any of us, knows about and cares about the institution of the Senate and the history of the Senate and all of its procedures and traditions.

I went to Senator Byrd and said, What about this idea? When I left, I had the volumes that he had done on the history of the Senate and the Roman Empire, and various and sundry other books that I could read. I had to ask if I could have a staff member help get the material back to my office.

The answer to my question, Should I do this, was a resounding, "Yes." I think it is appropriate that he is the one we use this opportunity to honor and to hear what he has to say.

It is often said that a great institution like the Senate of the United States has a life of its own. I disagree. For all its grandeur and for all its continuity, the life of this institution is nothing more than the interwoven lives of those who serve here. Their lives are what ennoble this place; their shortcomings are what humanize this place.

Their deeds may be routine or--to borrow a well-chosen word-- resounding. In either case, their stature, both in the eyes of their colleagues and in the judgment of history, is something earned by achievement, not devised by sound bites and staging.

Our speaker this evening embodies that truth.

Seven times--seven times--the people of West Virginia have elected him to the Senate, and before that they have given him three terms in the United States House of Representatives. And before that, he had served 6 years in both the House of Delegates and the Senate of his own home State. Always learning, always mastering the procedures and the traditions, he came to this body at a time when Ike was in the White House and three future Presidents frequented the Senate floor--Nixon, Kennedy, and Johnson.

Now they, and so many more, are figures of history, while our speaker is still making history--and writing, as well.

His service to the Senate has encompassed 40 years, and still counting. During that time, his colleagues have placed their trust in him to the highest offices of this institution. He has been both the majority leader and the minority leader. He has been our President pro tempore and he has chaired our Committee on Appropriations.

What he has brought to those positions has been more than hard work--although there has been plenty of that--and high skills. He has brought a passion for procedures, an insistence upon order. Just this week, or maybe it was late last week, he found that maybe I had cut a corner a little bit in the way I asked for a unanimous consent. He noted it, reserved it, and suggested I take another look at it. Certainly, I did and I will comply. Within the Senate family--and we are a family in so many ways--we know him as defender of both the Senate rules and its prerogatives, not as ends in them themselves, but as a means by which the Senate preserves the constitutional system that we have sworn to uphold.

On occasion, he has regaled the Senate with a discourse on antiquity, and more specifically, the history of Greece and Rome. Yes, when Senator Byrd speaks, we actually come out of the Cloakroom and our offices and listen, enthralled, to the history that he knows, that he quotes from memory. He has spoken of great historic events and has quoted from the Bible. And yet he has spoken personally, humanly, about the wonders of being a father and a grandfather in such a way that has brought tears to my eyes.

In today's world, where everything older than a decade is considered ancient, his knowledge of the classical world is truly extraordinary. And his insistence that its somber lessons are relevant to our own times is truly sobering.

There have been periods in the life of our Republic when parts of its government have been deeply troubled--on occasion, even shaken to their foundations. In those seasons of turmoil, it has been the Senate's role to give the Nation the reassurance of stability and endurance.

That, of course, is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution intended when they devised an upper Chamber that would be, in the once popular metaphor, a steady anchor against the wild winds of public passion and hasty action.

No one knows that better than tonight's speaker. His magisterial "Addresses on the History of the United States Senate" chronicles the work of those Senators, whether renowned or obscure, who have toiled in these Halls for causes larger than their own advancement. Their example brings to mind a cautionary observation by our speaker's favorite author--I had to double check that it was his favorite author. In "King Henry the Sixth, Part I," Shakespeare warns that,

Glory is like a circle in the water.

Which never ceaseth to enlarge itself,

Till by broad spreading it disperse to naught.

Our speaker's personal heroes--like Richard Russell of Georgia --have been those who pursued duty rather than passing glory and who, in the process, won for themselves a lasting remembrance in the annals of representative democracy. It is appropriate that this evening we turn that accolade back on Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.

We are honored to hear from this great and distinguished Senator. I thank him for agreeing to be here tonight and giving us his thoughts and his ideas on what the Senate is and will be.

Now, to formally introduce him, even though I know this was a long comment on this occasion, our good friend and colleague, the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle.

Introduction by Senator Tom Daschle

Senator Lott, congratulations on your outstanding remarks. While it is my formal responsibility to introduce Robert C. Byrd, I'm going to take the liberty of introducing one other person. She is to the spouses what he is to the U.S. Senators. Erma Byrd is here, and we are delighted that she has graced us with her presence.

We know that many of Robert Byrd's family are here and we are delighted you are here and we welcome you tonight.

When Senator Lott inaugurated this series very wisely 6 months ago, he explained that it would feature speakers who will "enrich the memory of the Senate by sharing with us the wisdom and insights that can be gained only by a lifetime of service to free people."

Without question, tonight's speaker, Robert C. Byrd, will more than live up to that lofty objective.

As we all know, Robert Byrd has been in the business of "enriching the Senate's memory" for decades.

One particularly tangible example is his award-winning, four-volume, 3,000-page history of the U.S. Senate.

The eminent American political historian, William Leuchtenburg, has called "Byrd's History" a magisterial enterprise "the most ambitious study of the U.S. Senate in all of our history."

"Never before," he said, "has a distinguished Member of the U.S. Senate carried to completion a comprehensive history of the Senate, drawing upon both his own insights and recollections, and the most recent work of all scholars."

Not all of Senator Byrd's history lessons, of course, are contained in books.

Sometimes, they are offered in private conversations. I, certainly, as Senator Lott has just noted, have benefited from many of Senator Byrd's tutorials over the years. His most powerful history lessons, however, have been those delivered on the Senate floor.

We saw that again last week. These are painful days for the Senate and for our entire Nation, days of great potential consequence. Our responsibility, as Senator Byrd reminded us in his typically eloquent and erudite remarks last week, is to put the good of our Nation first, to be guided in these difficult days by two things only: our history and our own individual consciences.

If we follow his advice, I believe future history books, looking back on these days, will record that we served our Nation well. That is the same way, I am confident, that history will judge Senator Byrd's own long and distinguished career.

Raised by foster parents in the hardscrabble coal country of West Virginia, Robert Byrd came of age during the desperate days of the Great Depression. Fully deserving of the Horatio Alger Award he won 15 years ago, he turned adversity into opportunity every step of the way.

Since taking his first Senate oath in 1959, Senator Byrd has achieved an unsurpassed record of service to his State and to this Nation. And as you all know, if I were to recite all of the highlights of his Senate career, we simply wouldn't have time for Senator Byrd's remarks. Let me cite just a few examples.

Among the 1,843 Americans who have served in the Senate since 1789, no one has cast more rollcall votes or held more offices. Only two Senators in all of our history share the distinction of having been elected to seven consecutive full Senate terms. And only three have served longer.

Senator Byrd's congressional career has spanned the tenure of 10 Presidents, including Harry Truman. Following 12 years as his party's Senate floor leader, he easily shifted his deep institutional knowledge and experience to two other major Senate leadership positions: chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and Senate President pro tempore.

The longest-serving West Virginia Senator in history, Robert Byrd is the only person in the State's history to win all 55 counties in a contested election, and the only person to run unopposed for the U.S. Senate in a general election.

Last year, his State paid him an honor, second only to reelection, when they dedicated a 10-foot, 1,500-pound statue in his likeness. The statue, standing alone in the capitol rotunda at Charleston, appropriately depicts him holding the Constitution in one hand and pointing with the other to the section that provides Congress the power of the purse.

This Senate giant from West Virginia has been an active participant in so much of our Nation's history: from the cold war to civil rights, the Great Society, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As he would be the first to acknowledge, his career path might have been quite different without the love and support of the coalminer's daughter, his wise partner of 61 years, whom we have just welcomed.

Robert C. Byrd is truly a legend in his own time. Like his statue in the State capitol, he stands larger than life, not only for his accomplishments but also for his principles.

Guided by his conscience and his deep understanding of the Constitution, he has taken some lonely stands, speaking candidly and thoughtfully about controversial nominations and treaties, and even calling for Senators to step down when their actions were detrimental to the institution of the Senate.

As you know, Senator Byrd's highest compliment to another Senator--a compliment he awards most sparingly--is to refer to that colleague as a "Senator's Senator."

Certainly, in the 210-year history of this singularly important legislative body, no one has deserved that more than tonight's speaker, the distinguished--the legendary--Robert C. Byrd.

Address by Senator Robert C. Byrd

The Senate - The Great Forum of Constitutional Liberty

Thank you very much. I am deeply grateful for the overly charitable and generous words from our leader, Senator Lott, who initiated this series of lectures, and I am grateful for the more-than-kind, always-overlooking-my-faults words from my own leader on the Democratic side, Mr. Daschle.

I thank you also for introducing my wife. She has put three children through school--our two daughters, and myself.

I'm grateful for the presence of a former majority leader and former minority leader--all in one--Howard Baker, and his lovely wife, Nancy Kassebaum-Baker. You honor me by coming here tonight, Howard and Nancy, and I deeply appreciate it.

I had seen Mike Mansfield some days ago and he indicated that he was coming; is he here tonight? Very well, perhaps he could not make it.

I'm glad, also, to see in our midst one of the rocks of Gibraltar -- there are only two--the real rock and Strom Thurmond.

He is the only remaining Senator with whom I took the oath of office when I first came here.

I'm greatly flattered by the presence of so many of my peers. And I can say something good about every one of you because I know something good about you.

A Look Backward

Clio being my favorite muse, let me begin this evening with a look backward over the well-traveled road of history. History always turns our faces backward, and this is as it should be, so that we might be better informed and prepared to exercise wisdom in dealing with future events.

"To be ignorant of what happened before you were born," said Cicero, "is to remain always a child."

So, for a little while, as we meet together in this hallowed place, let us turn our faces backward.

Look about you. We meet tonight in the Senate Chamber. Not the Chamber in which we transact our business daily now, but the Old Senate Chamber where our predecessors wrote the laws before the Civil War. Here, in this room, Daniel Webster--he moved about the Chamber from time to time--Daniel Webster orated, Henry Clay forged compromises, and John C. Calhoun stood on principle. Here, Henry Foote of Mississippi pulled a pistol on Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri. Senator Benton ripped open his coat, and said, "Let the assassin fire!" And, "Stand out of the way." Here the eccentric Virginia Senator John Randolph brought his hunting dogs into the Chamber, and the dashing Texas Senator, Sam Houston, sat over here to my right; he sat at his desk whittling wooden hearts for ladies in the gallery. Seated at his desk in the back row, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was beaten violently over the head with a cane wielded by Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina, who objected to Sumner's strongly abolitionist speeches and the vituperation that Sumner had heaped upon Brooks' uncle, Senator Butler of South Carolina.

The Senate first met here in 1810, but, because our British cousins chose to set fire to the Capitol during the War of 1812, Congress was forced to move into the Patent Office Building in downtown Washington, and later into a building known as the Brick Capitol, located on the present site of the Supreme Court Building. Hence, it was December 1819 before Senators were able to return to this restored and elegant Chamber. They met here for 40 years, and it was during that exhilarating period that the Senate experienced its "Golden Age."

Here, in this room, the Senate tried to deal with the emotional and destructive issue of slavery by passing the Missouri Compromise of 1820. That act drew a line across the United States, and asserted that the peculiar institution of slavery should remain to the south of the line and not spread to the north. The Missouri Compromise also set the precedent that for every slave state admitted to the Union, a free state should be admitted as well, and vice versa. What this meant in practical political terms was that the North and the South would be exactly equal in voting strength in this Chamber, and that any settlement of the explosive issue of slavery would have to originate here in the Senate. As a result, the nation's most talented and ambitious legislators began to leave the House of Representatives to take seats here in the Senate Chamber. Here, they fought to hold the Union together through the omnibus compromise of 1850, only to overturn these efforts by passing the fateful Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

The Senators moved out of this room in 1859, on the eve of the Civil War. When they marched in procession from this Chamber to the current Chamber, it marked the last time that leaders of the North and South would march together. The next year, the South seceded, and Senators who had walked shoulder to shoulder here parted to become military officers and political leaders of the Union and of the Confederacy.

This old Chamber that they left behind is not just a smaller version of the current Chamber. Here the center aisle divides the two parties, but there are an equal number of desks on either side--you will count 32 on one side and 32 on the other side--not because the two parties were evenly divided but because there was not room to move desks back and forth depending on the size of the majority, as we do today. That meant that some members of the majority party had to sit with members of the minority. It did not matter to them. The two desks in the front row on the center aisle were not reserved for the majority and minority leaders as they are now, because there were no party floor leaders at that time. No Senator spoke for his party; every Senator spoke for himself. There were recognized leaders among the Senators, but only unofficially. Everyone knew, for example, that Henry Clay led the Whigs, but he would never claim that honor. Clay generally sat in the last row at the far end of the Chamber so he could talk to Senators as they came in to vote.

The Senate is Still the Same Institution

The Senate left this Chamber because it outgrew the space. When they first met here in 1810 there were 32 Senators. So many states were added over the next four decades that when they left in 1859, there were 64 Senators. Yet, while the Senate had increased in size, it was essentially the same institution that the Founders had created in the Constitution. Today, another century and four decades later, and having grown to 100 Senators, it is still essentially the same institution. The actors have changed; the issues have changed; but the Senate, which emerged from the Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, remains the great forum of the states.

This is so, largely, because as a nation, we were fortunate to have wise, cautious people draft and implement our Constitution. They were pragmatists rather than idealists. James Madison, particularly, had a shrewd view of human nature. He did not believe in man's perfectibility. He assumed that those who achieved power would always try to amass more power and that political factions would always compete out of self-interest. In "The Federalist Papers," Madison reasoned that "in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the government; and, in the next place, oblige it to control itself." Madison and other Framers of the Constitution divided power so that no one person, no single branch of Government could gain complete power. As Madison explained it: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

However, ambition has not always counteracted ambition, as we saw in the enactment by Congress of the line-item veto in 1996. Just as the Roman Senate ceded its power over the purse to the Roman dictators, Sulla and Caesar, and to the later emperors, thus surrendering its power to check tyranny, so did the American Congress, the Senate included. By passing the Line-Item Veto Act the Congress surrendered its control over the purse, control which had been vested by the Founding Fathers here in this legislative branch.

The Legislative Branch Must Be Eternally Vigilant

This brings me to the first point that I would like to leave with you this evening. It is this: the legislative branch must be eternally vigilant over the powers and authorities vested in it by the Constitution--eternally vigilant. This is vitally important to the security of our constitutional system of checks and balances and separation of powers. George Washington, in his Farewell Address of September 17, 1796, emphasized the importance of such vigilance:

It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department, to encroach upon one another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. . . . The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern. . . . To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.

Each Member of this body must be ever mindful of the fundamental duty to uphold the institutional prerogatives of the Senate if we are to preserve the vital balance which Washington so eloquently endorsed.

During my 46 years in Congress, and particularly in more recent years, I have seen an inclination--I think I have--on the part of many legislators in both parties to regard a chief executive in a role more elevated than the framers of the Constitution intended. We, as legislators, have a responsibility to work with the chief executive, but it is intended to be a two-way street. The Framers did not envision the office of President as having the attributes of royalty. We must recognize the heavy burden that any President bears, and wherever and whenever we can, we must cooperate with the chief executive in the interest of all the people. But let us keep in mind Madison's admonition: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

As Majority Leader in the Senate during the Carter years, I worked hard to help President Carter to enact his programs. But I publicly stated that I was not the "President's man"; I was a Senate man. For example, in July 1977, I opposed President Carter's plan to sell the AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) to Iran. Iran was then a military ally of the United States, but I was troubled over the potential security risks involved and the possibility of compromising highly sophisticated technology in that volatile region. I was concerned that the sale ran contrary to our national interests in maintaining a stable military balance and limited arms proliferation in the Middle East. Both Houses of Congress had to vote disapproval resolutions to stop the sale. I enlisted the support of the then-Republican Minority Leader, Howard Baker. Senator Baker was someone who could rise above political party when he believed that the national interests required it, just as he did during the Panama Canal debates. The Carter Administration chose to withdraw the sale of AWACS temporarily. Shortly afterwards, the Iranian revolution occurred and the Shah was replaced. Had the sale gone through as planned, those sophisticated aircraft would have fallen into the hands of an unfriendly government. As so often has happened in our history, individual courage and character again chartered our course.

To Rise Above Party

This brings me to my second point. On the great issues, the Senate has always been blessed with Senators who were able to rise above party, and consider first and foremost the national interest. There are very worthy examples in Senate history.

When I came to the Senate in 1959, artists were at work painting five porthole portraits in the Senate reception room. The Senate had appointed a special Committee chaired by Senator John F. Kennedy to select the five most significant Senators in Senate history. This was no easy task, because there were many potential candidates. In setting the criteria, the Committee looked to Senators who had stood firm for principle, who had not blown with the winds, and who had made personal sacrifices for the national good. They were not saints, nor were they perfect men. Daniel Webster's personal financial dealings left an eternal blot upon his record; yet, he deserved to have his portrait in the Senate reception room, not simply as a great orator but as a man who sacrificed his own political standing by endorsing the compromise of 1850, which was deeply unpopular in his home State of Massachusetts, but which he realized was the best chance to hold the Union together.

In my almost 46 years in Congress, I have seen other courageous Senators. I have already referred to the courage demonstrated by former Senator Howard Baker during the Panama Canal debates. Without Senator Baker's support, the Panama Canal Treaties would never have been approved by the Senate. We needed two-thirds; we were swimming uphill. The odds were against us. The killing of American servicemen in Panama would have gone on, but Senator Howard Baker threw his shoulder behind the wheel and helped to construct what he and I referred to as leadership amendments, amendments which protected U.S. interests in that region, and we both worked shoulder to shoulder against great odds, as indicated by the polls. We did so because we believed, after careful study, that the treaties were in the best interests of the United States. There are people in my own State of West Virginia who still don't believe that. But I was convinced of it.

Howard Baker knew what my old majority leader, Mike Mansfield, and all students of the Senate's institutional role know. Political polarization--too much emphasis on which side of the aisle one sits, is not now, and has never been, a good thing for the Senate. I am talking about politics when it becomes gamesmanship or when it becomes mean-spirited or when it becomes overly manipulative, simply to gain advantage. I am not talking about honestly held views or differing political positions. Those things enrich our system. Americans have always loved a good debate. And that is what I believe they wish for now: more substantive and stimulating debate and less pure politics and imagery. But I well understand history and its ebb and flow, and I well know that we live in an age of imagery. It is simply my wish that, sometime soon, the rising tide of imagery and partisanship will begin to ebb rather than to flow quite so freely.

Washington, in his farewell address, warned us against the "baneful effects of the spirit of party" when he said:

. . . in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume.

So, I believe that the American people are more than tired of partisan warfare. I believe they wish for less of it from the Congress, especially in the Senate, where more statesmanship and a longer view are still expected. Declining participation in elections, and repeated public surveys which indicate weariness, distrust, and alienation within our system ought to serve as a harbinger to be ignored at our peril.

It must be a matter of concern to all of us that all too few Americans look to officeholders for inspiration in these troubled and turbulent times. How can we attract the talent needed to serve in public office in future years if elected officials continue to be held in such low esteem? I would very much like to see a rekindling of basic faith in our leaders, and a renewal of interest in politics and of public service. But the existence of inspiring leadership by public officials is fundamental to a shoring up of that faith.

In fact, I think the American people are in desperate need of some old-fashioned heroes. Now, it seems, today's heroes, if we want to loosely use the term, are merely celebrities--rock stars who spout deplorable messages, or sports figures who amass fortunes advertising baggy clothes at exorbitant prices. I'm not talking about Sammy Sosa. I'm not talking about Mark McGwire. They are my heros, too, as was Babe Ruth in 1927. Not much to look up to here, I say. Not much to build dreams on.

Look hard at the content of our popular culture. There is really nothing much to inspire and look up to. And regrettably there also is not much to counter the empty commercialism which is so prevalent today. It has become the norm.

The Duty Beyond Our Duties

So where are we in all of this? What is our role? What part can we as Senators--authority figures, statesmen representing the people --play while we simultaneously endeavor to carry out our 200-year-old mandate, bequeathed to us by some of the most brilliant men of their age, or of any age before or since?

Well, we can show up for roll call votes, carry out our committee assignments, issue the obligatory press releases, dutifully follow up on constituent requests, and answer our mail. All of these are necessary and to a greater or lesser degree important. But a reemphasis by the Senate on our strict institutional role is certainly something which I would like to see. It is a sobering and heavy responsibility all by itself, and its very weightiness tends to cool the over-heated passions of political demagoguery. After all, that role is, in a constitutional sense, the reason we are here. The Framers expected a zealous defense of our powers to keep the tyrants at bay.

But there is still another role--an intangible something--that we who are privileged to sit in this body, and indeed leaders in the private sector, as well as those who write and reflect upon the news, are called upon to play. I call it the duty beyond our duties. The duty I am talking about is the duty to endeavor to inspire others and to demonstrate, through personal example, that public service of all types ought to be an honorable calling. Contrary to what many believe, it is absolutely the wrong place for the slick and the insincere.

Serving the public in a leadership role demands honesty, hard work, sacrifice, and dedication from those who dare to ask the people for such an awesome trust. Those who ask to shoulder that mantle also shoulder a much larger personal obligation than many of us may regularly contemplate.

Mr. Leader, we all have a clear responsibility to serve as role models to inspire our people, and particularly our young people, to be and to do their best. On that score, we politicians, as a group, generally miss the mark. Perhaps it's because power, whether it be the power of political office, or the power to run giant corporations, or the power to report and analyze events, is a very heady thing. It can lead to arrogance, self aggrandizement, disregard for playing by the rules, and contempt for the people who send us here. It can lead us to forget that we are servants, not masters.

In the real world, exemplary personal conduct can sometimes achieve much more than any political agenda. Comity, courtesy, charitable treatment of even our political opposites, combined with a concerted effort to not just occupy our offices, but to bring honor to them, will do more to inspire our people and restore their faith in us, their leaders, than millions of dollars of 30-second spots or glitzy puff-pieces concocted by spinmeisters.

These are troubling times for our nation and our people on both the national and international fronts. For our country to weather the rough seas ahead, we must use our most tempered judgments and seek out our best and most noble instincts. Our example here can be a healing element--a balm to salve the trauma of distrust and disillusionment too long endured by a good people. Let each of us follow his or her own conscience when it comes to issues, but as we do so, may we be ever mindful there are people watching us, and the people who sent us here can take us back home again. Let us be aware of the sublimely uplifting part which the example of simple dignity, decency, decorum, and dedication to duty can play in the life of a nation.

Let us also remember that even after two hundred years, the Senate is still the anchor of the Republic, the morning and evening star in the American constitutional constellation. It has had its giants and its little men, its Websters and its Bilbos, its Calhouns and its McCarthys. It has been the stage of high drama, of comedy and of tragedy, and its players have been the great and the near great, those who think they are great, and those who probably never will be great. It has weathered the storms of adversity, withstood the barbs of cynics and the attacks of critics, and provided stability and strength to the nation during periods of civil strife and uncertainty, panics and depressions. In war and in peace, it has been the sure refuge and protector of the rights of the states and of a political minority because great and courageous Senators have always been there to stay the course and keep the faith. And it can do so again as long as we are ever blessed in this august body with those who hear the clear tones of the bell of duty, the Senate will continue to stand--the great forum of constitutional American liberty!

To enjoy the applause of one's own colleagues and peers is a high honor, indeed.

Return to Leader's Lecture Series Table of Contents Page

 
  

E-mail a Senate historian

Information provided by the Senate Historical Office.

Questions about Senate History?
Email a Senate historian.