Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Of The Founding Era Today 20240713

The institute, i also want to welcome you to our fullscale replica of the United States senate chamber. At the kennedy institute, we are committed to engaging the public in a conversation about the role each one of us plays in our democracy and in our society. We do that through Civic Education programs that bring the United States senate to life, and conversation like tonight, that bring American History into focus. We are very proud to partner with the Massachusetts Historical Society on todays program. They are an invaluable resource for american life, history, and culture. All of us at the institute are proud to gather and esteemed panel tonight. Fred thys covers politics at wbur, where he has been since 1998, breaking news and serving as a trusted source of truth and information. He previously was the nbc news bureau chief in mexico city, and a south america reporter for cbs news, based in argentina. Joining fred on the panel are distinguished scholars who provide perspectives on and knowledge of our nations founders. They will paint an informative picture of how the founders operated, and what current lawmakers and each one of us can learn from them. Tonights historians include liz covart from the institute of early American History it and culture and host of Ben Franklins world, a podcast about early American History. Stephen fried, author of rush revolution, madness, and a visionary doctor who became a founding father. He is an adjunct professor at the university of pennsylvania. Sarah georgini of the Massachusetts Historical Society. And matt sheidley, president of revolutionary spaces. Thank you all of you for being here tonight. I hope that you will visit again for one of our programs and visits, you are always always welcome here. I invite fred and our panelists to come to the front end we will begin the program. Thank you. [applause] fred welcome to the fullsize replica of the u. S. Senate. Welcome. Liz covart practices scholarly history, and digital humanities and the digital project director at the university of william and mary in williamsburg, virginia. Liz is the host of the Popular History podcast, nearly 300 episodes, Ben Franklins world. Stephen frieds and awardwinning journalist, New York Times bestselling author and professor at the Columbia University graduate school of journalism at the university of pennsylvania. His latest book is a biography of one of the signers of the declaration of independence, Benjamin Rush. It is called rush revolutionary, madness, and a visionary doctor who became a founding father. A twotime winner of the National Magazine award, fried has written for vanity fair, gq, Washington Post magazine, rolling stone, glamour, ladies home journal, rave, and philadelphia magazine. Sarah georgini is an editor at the Massachusetts Historical Society. She is the author of household gods the religious lives of the adams family. She is a contributor to the society for u. S. Intellectual history blogs for smithsonian and for cnn. And at the far end we have nat sheidley, first president and ceo of revolutionary spaces, formed after the merger of the Bostonian Society and the old south association. He spent eight years at the Bostonian Society, where he was director of public history and later executive director. Shively was an associate professor of history at Wellesley College before he entered the field of public history. I would like to start off here we are in the replica of the United States senate. In the actual United States senate as we speak, senators are as divided, as washington is, as the parties are, it seems like we are in complete gridlock. Were the founders this divided . Sarah we have always faced moments in history where we felt great Political Polarization within our culture. But looking at this beautiful building and listening to introduction of my distinguished panelists, laces like this are revolutionary spaces. Always have been. So thinking about institutions that foster dialogue then and now is a good way to bring our conversation over to how the 18thcentury can mirror or give tips to the 21st century. Anyone want to jump in . Fred maybe with a tip . You are being too kind. I was astonished by how mean the Founding Fathers were all to each other. But i also find it kind of comforting. Benjamin rush was not only one of the signers, but he was a doctor to a lot of these guys. What is clear in the letters and if you read the journals of the time, i remember reading john adams calling him a maggot in the newspaper during one of the elections. The idea we invented partisanship, we invented mediadriven meanness, is really just a bad reading of history. As soon as there was america, as soon as there were two parties, there was this kind of partisanship, and especially in the 1790s in philadelphia, where you had a ton of media and everybody living in a close space. It mirrored what we see now in a surprising way, and i think if people thought they would not be quite as freaked out about now. And if you read dialogues between the actors, they are already asking if they blew it already. These questions like, is america over, did we blow it . Like we just thought of this . The people who created this country thought about it all the time. And you can see the optimism they come through that they will move forward with it. And that is hardwired in the country from the minute it was a country. Polarization was not something that was foreign to the founding generation. When you think about it, they had even more reasons to be divided. First, they had to think about, do we overthrow the king and parliament to create a new country . Do we support this new government under the articles of confederation and later the constitution, or are we really for our own space . In the early government, more power resided with the states than with the government. They were more intense, so people in addition to being polarized about political issues were also trying to figure out who they were raz and american people, and that was part of the journey, and part of the journey you could say we are still living with today. It is helpful, to pick up on that point, to think about how contested the idea of we was at that time. We have a founding document that uses the phrase we the people, but there was no agreement about who was in the body politic and was outside the body politic. If we use the small lens and look at the consensus of who was a voter and who ought to have a voice in the formal politics of the time, even there there were sharp divides, polarization, increasing partisanship. If we brought in that lands end ask who was outside the sanctioned category of we the people, if we include those who were enslaved, women who were denied political rights, men who lacked sufficient property to have voting rights, if we broadened the lens that far, we can see there were deep, deep, fundamental conflicts that divided, even beyond a chamber like this one, divided the entire population of north america. It can be empowering for us to remember that, because as we grapple in this moment with that question, what do we mean when we say we the people, where do we want to put the boundaries around that category . It is a question that feels super alive in all our communities right now across the country. We can feel a kinship with the founding era. We are divided, but we are also united by our shared argument over that question. Fred what would you say provides continuity to the american character . What has been a constant since the early days, prior to the American Revolution, building up to it, right to today . I touched on it a little bit already, but the way i think about this is that we stand as a nation in a current of dialogue around a set of fundamental questions. And they are not questions given to us necessarily by the founders, or by the founding generation, but they deeply run through the era of the revolution and the revolution settlement. And they are the questions each generation has to grapple with in their own time and find fresh answers to. And those questions run Something Like this. Who speaks for me . How do i have a voice . What is my recourse when my voice isnt heard . And this question of who is inside and who is outside that circle of we the people. That is the current that binds us together. There are other questions. Rushs main thing, he wrote after the revolutionary war, the wars over but the revolution just started. And he was a doctor, so he didnt think things they were talking about were going to get fixed. Doctors dont think diseases are going to go away, they think about incremental improvement. I dont think rush thought people took seriously enough what authority had been taken away from them by the king and the state church on what they would have to do in its place. The challenge would be having separation of church and state, challenging to have Public Education so people could be worthy of their citizenshiphood. Fred how did they break through gridlock . Did they have gridlock . If i could share a story from the Massachusetts Historical Society, we are readying the next john adams volume from 17891791. The senate looked different than john adams day but there is still a great deal of regional political divisions. As i am indexing, one thing i index the most, regional and political divisions, need for union on possible disunion. This convergence of ideas is constantly on the minds of people in our. You have an extraordinary moment in the founding era, and they are keenly aware the world is watching. In one way they overcome this divide is personal. I have a Great Exchange between sam adams and john adams, two men who are cousins, who are on different sides of constitutional praise and criticism, who are thinking differently about the future of the country, and they tried so hard in their correspondence to feast, as they say, on a dish of politics. They put this in a lovely, genteel, 18thcentury sense, but i know they are struggling so hard. And in their letters back and forth, they look for common threads, that there were both in agreement on during their more revolutionary days. So they say, a love of liberty, a love of education, a need for us to have some sort of tripartite federal government that will withstand the wear and tear of all this infighting we currently see in the legislature, a government of laws and not of men, as john adams always wished it to be. So we see this kind of personal, at the family level, conflicts raging with personal nuance, and we see people trying to overcome it. Some of it is interpersonal. Some of it is political. But it is the fact that in this founding era, we have a remarkable set of figures who are, if nothing else, lifelong students of government. And they are fascinated about how governments work, and where they can carry us. I was struck by the interview with Chuck Schumer on the daily this week, you look at Chuck Schumer and you think, he must never talk to republicans, and of course he does, he talks to them in the gym and this is where he finds out where they stand on things such as asking for witnesses in this trial are not. You had this story about Ben Franklins world, you touch on everything, arcadians in nova scotia to how the bill of rights came about. Do you have any thoughts on how people at opposite ends who were creating this country are the Political Institutions of this country were able to get the on gridlock . That is an ageold question because when you look at the scope of American History you are dealing with a lot of different people, and a lot of different political entities, a lot of different cultures, a lot of different religions, all trying to get along. And it is trying to find the art of compromise. Ben franklin wasnt perfect. His son was a loyalist. He was a patriot. He never forgive william for it. So it divided his family. He wasnt able to find compromise there. But he is at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 saying, you know, i want a unicameral legislature, democracy is a good thing, people should have the right to vote, but a lot of these states are worried about the people voting on the mobs. So he advocates for compromise and one thing he advocates for his the connecticut plan, that you should have two houses in congress, the house of representatives and the senate. But it is a struggle. He gets up in the Constitutional Convention several times saying, we need to compromise, no government can be perfect, perhaps we even created the perfect government and cant see it yet. So he is advocating for compromise. One historian said this was really tough, the art of compromise is not something that is hurrah wet, but it is the stuff of democracy. It is what gets democracy done. And i think you can see the founding generation grappling with that, and even our own generation grappling with that. We tend to, today, look at the federal government, and these guys were more grappling with compromise at the state level. So part of the reason franklin had to deal with the idea of a unicameral constitution is because that is what pennsylvania had. And it was terrible. Adams and roche went on and on about their fear about the pennsylvania constitution. The pennsylvania constitution had one house. You could throughout the chief executive. You could get rid of the supreme court. It also had a test for religion. You had the original pennsylvania constitution, which roche got voted out of the Continental Congress after signing the declaration, you had to swear an oath to jesus, and you had to say the old and new testament were 100 accurate. The irony for Benjamin Rush is that Benjamin Rush believed that personally, but thought codifying a religious test in any constitution, there was great fear at the Constitutional Convention, that the pennsylvania constitution would hold some sway. I am glad it didnt. You are a good custodian of these very important buildings in early america, the old state house on the old south meeting house. What can you tell us about these places . And what kinds of divisions were within them, and our people able to solve these divisions . Our organization cares for the old statehouse, the seat of provincial government in revolutionary massachusetts, so the seat of a formal politics in boston and surrounding colony, and the old south meetinghouse, which was a Congregational Church but also the largest indoor Gathering Place in boston, so it tended to be the seat of popular politics. The tea Party Gathering began there in december of 1773. There is a lot of ways to get purchase on this question about compromise or the difficulty of achieving political compromise. A story id like to tell is set in the stamp act crisis of 1765, so the colonies understand the parliament is contemplating imposing a tax on the colonies and they are trying to figure out how to prevent that from being put in place, and you have in the two different spaces in the old statehouse, the Governors Council chamber, where the upper house of the legislature met with the appointed governor, and the assembly from the house of representatives, where elected representatives of the town gathered, two very different answers of how to defeat the proposed stamp act. Thomas hutchinson, who was the consummate institutionalist of revolutionary massachusetts, he had mastered all of the institutions of the transatlantic empire, and was so wellpositioned to use Patronage Networks to call in favors to defeat measures, advocated for a very moderate position. What we should do is write a letter to parliament on the ministry and we should say, yes, parliament has the authority to tax the colonies, but we really think it wouldnt be expedient because it would make people upset, and people love london right now, and why would you squander that . That is his idea. In the other house, james otis, working alongside samuel adams and others, has a very different idea. No, we should call out the stamp act as a transgression that is unconstitutional, and we should name that parliament lacks authority to impose taxes directly on the colonies. He is able to get that idea adopted by an intercolonial stamp act congress, but he cant get the resolution to carry in his own house in massachusetts. And he is so frustrated by that. They passed it in the house and it goes to the Governors Council for concurrence. It has to be seconded there. And they refuse. They send it back. Hutchinson insists, we have to take a more moderate position, and moderates in the house of representatives agree. Ultimately the best massachusetts can do is send off a very milquetoast a letter to the ministry saying, you know, it is really not a great idea, we wish you wouldnt do it. And otiss head is fit to explode. Running off to the press and telling anyone what was said in closed session. The moderates had covered. They could reach compromise without popular pressure. As soon as you put the public up in the gallery, as soon as the moderates say we should make common cause with the conservatives, we should support crown authority, there is an implied threat that some be will go across the street to the boston gazette. Your name will be published in gigantic crowd of angry protesters. This could be threatening to break every window and tear every door down. The next crisis that happens when the townshend duties are passed in 1967, the massachusetts house is entirely radicalized. Actively trying to ensure that compromise cant happen in order to press the popular will. Politics was very violent back then. If you dont like something, you riot. F a it is something i found very interesting. I was always looking at the media. The country is so different before 1790 and after when there are many daily newspapers in the u. S. Capitol. We look at newspapers and we have to remember that up until that time. , there was not a ton of Media Coverage and not everybody could read. There were a lot of people that did not know what was going on. There were a lot of people in philadelphia that were loyal to the city. Most people did not want anything to change. A lot of people were not passionate passionate about either side of this, they just wanted to go to work and raise their kids. Freed not until america england. S from they had to accept the responsibilities of the revolution. We say politics was made so crazy. Imagine what it was like to have the u. S. Capitol and have eight daily newspapers suddenly in a , philadelphia was tiny. I would argue that that influx of media and that crazy Media Coverage of the capital was probably as amazing as the influx of Electronic Media today. There were always these dynamics of people stuck in the middle. What happens to john adams when he has all of these ideas and he goes to this loyalist city and has to be mindful that virginia feels like is relating everything . How does he win people over . That is the short story of john adamss legacy. He has a complicated ationship they are not on american shores. They are in europe securing funding and aid and support and troops. They come back, decades later to a very changed world. Creating aho are government that they have not seen since the Continental Congress. Landscape weedia might think it think of it as. People are thinking about what is in it for them. It seems like he gets these letters all the time. A very complicated question for john adams and for his cohort. The truth is he does not always mix easily with loyalists. He has a lot of interactions with them in london. Some are close family friends, his Family Doctor is a loyalist. Down. Es a couple of doors person to point out the situation is abigail adams. You have this heightened awareness of what peoples loyalties were. There is also flex ability about what they might be. Often, the loyalists who did not receive good treatment. They reintegrate back into american john adams often encounters them with something not like sympathy or pity. He often renews friendships that he has lost and he sundered a few new ones along the way. Fraught legacy that he has. Himself as an actor in making that complicated. Of the great compliments in the fieldy was of health care. Obviously, he pushed for obamacare, the american with disabilities act. His last great accomplishment was in the field of mental health. What did Benjamin Rush think about how society if not the federal government with the response ability of society was to take care of the sick and mentally ill . It is two different questions. When it comes to Mental Illness, he and ted kennedy and ted kennedys two sons were right in lockstep. They wanted to make sure that the people saw Mental Illness and addiction as medical diseases that needed to be treated by medicine and not by. Ailures of religious belief what is amazing is that Benjamin Rush wrote about that in the 1780s. We are still unfortunately debating this today. Part of the reason that this had to be passed was because these illnesses are not treated the same as everyone else. We are backsliding on it right now in our coverage of it. It is the right place to talk about health care. Health care was different then. Everybody got health care at home. Time, the pedaling was cocreated by Benjamin Franklin. The idea was that doctors would create take care of poor people. People who are treated at homewood pay them and that is how society would do that. Institutionsme that were created before franklin died and then some after. He wanted to continue these ideas of voluntary associations that would solve the problems. They created a free dispensary for Outpatient Care and then did things like that. It is not a direct link. The federalt of government that took care of people the way we take care of people today was the military. The military has those responsibilities and viewed it as such. Oft is where they grow out our original importance of taking care of soldiers. Rush thought about that because he was on the battlefields of the revolutionary war, and wrote not only about physical medicine but ptsd on the battlefield. What is amazing if you look at the revolution from a Doctors Point of view, the idea about where health care fits in a society and how important it is. The language sounds almost exactly the same. The doctors of that era felt that it was as difficult as it is now. They would have very strong ideas their idea was that everyone had to be taken care of. That was the responsibility of the medical community. How to do that . Rush was always obsessed with how do we do this . If i am a doctor, i have to know where to get the money had to take care of these patients. Sarah do you want to jump in here . Sarah i think if we look at 18th, 19th century, early American Health care, we get a very different view. We might not see a rush at every home, but we would certainly see women like abigail adams, who were tasked with taking care of sick neighbors, relatives. Anyone in their local community. We also see something a little different when it came to the role of, people who werent doctors but cared a great deal about tending to the sick. Talking specifically about philanthropic and benevolent organizations. In the 1790s, you have efforts afoot to create marine hospitals. When Alexander Hamilton drafts his first report and submits it, he immediately starts thinking about things like health care, because built into that brilliant, multipage plan, is a provision for the widows and children of disabled and sick sailors. Thinking about things like, this might resonate with us. How the economy is tied to health care, what role the government has. Where people who are not doctors but other actors like benevolent associations and philanthropist, also have the voice and ear of the health care system. Anyone else want to jump in on this Health Care Question . Lets get back to how John Adams John adams goes to philadelphia and meets Benjamin Rush on his way to philadelphia. Benjamin rush warns him about what he is about to encounter. One of the Amazing Things about the story is that Benjamin Rush is like a 29yearold doctor, not in the Continental Congress. He goes out to meet adams because he is one of the sons of liberty. Coauthored the proclamation that led to the boston tea party. They went out there, the massachusetts delegation figured they were going to run the congress. Rush said to them and others in the pennsylvania delegation, if you dont put aside your belief that you think you should be in charge, even though you are right, and let the virginias think they are running it, we are doomed. This is john adams first introduction to this. Rush make sure that they get in the same carriage together, they are in the same suburb of philly. So rush could talk his ear off. Rush and many of the other doctors in philadelphia took care of the congressman. They would have them over for dinner. Adams originally thought rush was a good place to have food. He wrote them a letter they serve good melons at russias house, a good view of the delaware. Rushs house. Rush finds himself signing the declaration of independence. Then him and adams become friends. Their friendship becomes wonderful because their letters back and forth are terrific. They are doctors. When she got cancer, rush is the one that forced her to have surgery. Their letters are unbelievably personal. It is crushing when they are the same town of philadelphia for 10 years because there are no letters. After the election of 1800, they dont speak for five years. Then he reached out to rush and said we should have some communication before one of us dies. Then on, they write hundreds of letters to each other. That are really a replay of our entire understanding of the American Revolution. They are amazing letters. They dont want them to see the ones that are critical of washington. The wives love it. Abigail is happy that john adams has something to do, and he will read these letters. During the course of these letters, we find out two things. Rush is trying to get john adams and Thomas Jefferson back together before one of them dies. The biggest concern about partisanship and what it could do to america, rushs said if partisanship can destroy the relationship between john adams and Thomas Jefferson, what is the chance of our country . He did founding father family therapy. He wrote to both of them to try to get them back together. One of his crowning achievements the year before he died, was that they started writing again. Then wrote for another 13 years. All of those letters that came after 1805, it is a whole new retelling of what happened in america. A lot of it is driven by the friendship between rush and adams. At a certain point in my biography i let the relationship between rush and adams take over the book. So many letters, so industry so interesting. In this case, these guys were having unbelievable dialogue, which we are still learning from today. Sarah put letters out the people didnt pay much attention to, and it will still change one of the letters change how Benjamin Rush died. Because one of the letters had actually describe what the last six months of his life was like. The end of his life gets rewritten because one letter. Part of what i would say, the fact that this history is living, and that these people here are part of taking sure that it is living, is incredibly important. As we are invoking so often what the Founding Fathers said. It is really important to know what the context was for all of these oneliners. If you really want to know these people, get to know them in depth, at least on the subjects you care about. I think we are blessed with a quarter of a million manuscript pages. The adams family papers, available in digital editions. I think the adamsrush correspondence which has perked up again in the timeline that i had income is near and dear to my heart. It is such a great cashe of the personal, public, and private. John adams is unfettered in his commentary to Benjamin Rush. I turned to the rush letters for that probably more than anything else. They are remarkable as a pair, because when john adams returned to the United States, he had kind of an uneasy reintegration. Rush is there for him as a friend. They have these wonderful letters that are very much gentleman scholar exchanges. They are not just thinking about the federal government, they are thinking about what america should look like. What is american identity to us and the world. What kind of education do need to be a senator. What qualifies you to be in the house of representatives . What exactly should we do about the difference between executive authority, titles, and powers under the constitution. That all plays out in a lot of the adamsrush correspondence. Plus a lot of gossip. Deliciously gossipy. One of the things that adam says repeatedly, is his disbelief and what has taken the place of kingship in america is fame. He cant believe that Benjamin Franklin and George Washington are so much more famous than him. [laughter] there is a rift that goes through the letters, he does it four or five times. His utter disbelief is that history would remember that George Washington would smoke with Benjamin Franklins electric rod, and the two of them did everything to save the country. We take for granted the other Founding Fathers. Adams didnt matter as much until after the second world war. Abigail or john . Either of them, as characters in the public domain. We grew up during the adams chronicles on pbs. But in the history of history, there is like a hundred years were so much of the writing about the revolution is about what did washington do . What did franklin do . Now we are getting more parity. People are going to look more about Benjamin Rush, which is nice but it is ridiculous. If you told the story of the founders without Benjamin Rush, i think they would be genuinely surprised. There is a reason for that . Part of the reason is that the letters between adams, jefferson, and rush, were so unbelievably personal. When rush died, they came to the families and said please dont let anybody read these letters. Jefferson had written about his feelings on religion. The letters about their separation of church and state. A lot of criticism of washington, also a lot of personal things. The letter written to rush asking to be the medical guide for lewis and clark. Which he was. Another asking jefferson to state his diarrhea. Asking treatments to try, including differences on his saddle. Personal things. Keep in mind, russias rushs son had a psychotic break. Ended up being a psychiatric patient, living in a Psychiatric Hospital for 30 years. They were also sharing dark tragedy. Adams lost a son to alcoholism, his daughter had Breast Cancer and eventually did die. They were also sharing the great pains of their time. One thing this conversation has me thinking about is, the importance that these founding documents and paper collections have been very important. But it also makes you think about everyone else who participated in the different documents that are out there about them. There is a lot of exciting work around to expound the fact that, the founders were not the only ones involved in creating a revolution and the nation. Ed buck recently about the africanamerican patriots who served in the continental army, and their reasons for doing so. You have a book called the c ommon cause looking at how the patriots used media to bound everyone together. Native americans will massacre your town, it was fear mongering, and they were using the press that way. Historians are starting to look beyond the founders, and looking at who else is involved. Who is we the people . I think this is a very interesting vein of conversation. It makes me want to pull out for everyone, the work of remembering. The way our remembering of the founding era is relative to our politics today. These letters are part of the work that is happening in the first half of the 19th century. Translating events that people have participated in into a collective memory. Adams is interested in shaping a story of the American Revolution , which puts massachusetts in the driver seat. Because it is part of the sectional crisis that is beginning to manifest. This runs all the way through the antebellum. Defining what the nation is as a nation in the image of massachusetts. At the same moment, black abolitionists are remembering the history of the American Revolution, and the history of the boston massacre in particular. They are using the story of the founding era as a way to respond to slaveholders who said, black people cant be citizens. So they can sacrifice on behalf of the nation. Therefore you cant and the institution of slavery, because what would you do with this group of former slaves who cant be made citizens. I think we need to remember that when we talk about the founding era, and we say the founders said, what the founders told us, that we are telling a very particular story. We should be thoughtful in this moment about how broad we want that lens to be. We should respond to the idea with the question, which founders . It is a much more complex story. I would like to open it up to the audience. If you would raise your hand, someone will come to you with a microphone and feel free to ask away. Over here. Thank you so much. We talk about the Political Polarization. Someone argued that outside influences are trying to destabilize democracy, and that is causing this polarization. Is there any history of that from any countries other than england . France and spain very much wanted the United States to avoid making peace with Great Britain until france and spain had made their peace with Great Britain. I think there has always been a history since the very founding diplomacy and also negotiations how involved the United States is going to beat with foreign countries. In that one instance, Benjamin Franklin, john adams, and john jay said we will deal with Great Britain without france. One of Benjamin Rushs biggest problems was that one of the editors still thought britain would win. So he covered things that way. Rush actually sued him and one. Won. You have to remind yourself, how insignificant america was at the time. Of course there was foreign influence in our country. There was not that much here here. Our relationship with france, our relationship with britain, were much more important in a lot of ways. Rush and jefferson were associated with being french to the point that during the yellow fever epidemic, rushs treatment was considered the republican treatment, a french treatment. Because rush was friends with jefferson. I think it many of these people all blame this on Alexander Hamilton. He now has a musical and none of them do currently, he has a better publicist than the rest of them. Rush, adams, and jefferson all blame templeton for fant all blamed hamilton for fanning the flames of partisanship. He had yellow fever, and the cure that he had was the federalist cure. It really was unbelievably partisan, and a lot of it had to do with other countries. Being criticized for being too french after the french revolution, was very common in the political writing in america, especially in the 1790s. I think there is an omnipresent fear of the french and british that is going to tear about the First Federal government. When john adams is serving as the first u. S. Minister to Great Britain, there are little paragraphs planted in the british press. They say america cannot even afford a minister, the french are paying his salary. The second thing, would be that first meeting that congress has in federal hall in new york city. When they come in and gather, it is hastily put together, still under construction. They meet very briefly. Here are the two paintings that they sit beneath. Fulllength portraits of louis the 16th and marie antoinette. It is going to take a year or so before they commission a portrait of washington. They say we should probably put it next to where the king and queen of france are. There is kind of ate very concrete example there. It is not quite a box bot that is plastering it into your feed. But a reminder of those first policies and who funded you. It is definitely something that is of concern, it is something we see in the letters where they are talking about possible british and french influence that is going to wrench apart already rising partisanship. There actually are overtures on the frontier from spain, actually inviting folks who are settled in the area that will become tennessee and kentucky, to consider seceding and becoming part of spain. They are being offered access to the waterways of the mississippi in exchange for this. There are very direct machinations happening throughout the. The period. Vermont was asking, can we be part of the British Empire and United States . Some of the foreign was invited to. Invitedgn influence was too. The fact that they were going to knock down what became Independence Hall because no one had a sense of American History . It was supposed to be knocked down, the liberty bell was supposed to be melted. Lafayette came back in 1825 and toward america. Suddenly it was safe to have American History, because america had been america long enough that it was actually going to become a country. They started calling Independence Hall Independence Hall when he came. Before that it was just the old statehouse. I dont think it was fear. I think they were being realistic that it was an experiment and said could still not work out. I think part of their optimism that we still inherit really came from. It was really always hanging by a thread because of the incredible ambition of what they wanted to do, that had never been done before and they knew that. It was connecting those comments to think about how highly fluent boundaries were in fluid boundaries were in that founding era. What counts as foreign exactly is a huge question, the american navigation of the mississippi seems like something on the table depending on who we are dealing with. I think thinking about those really spicy, complex boundary dispute that started in the period and wont be resolved for some time are part of the influence, thinking about the statehood process itself. Internally what that means. Any questions on the balcony perhaps . Ok. Great. Question. As we are talking, i just want to know for my general equation what percentage of the population was not part of the people at the time . Well, by sex have. By sex, half. I think the African American population was 5 or 10 at most. Some cities had new to the american populations as well its the same, 1 , right . Its a decided minority if we are talking about the right to vote, which is what i think we should be talking about in this context. Benjamin rush, was very much part of the africanamerican community. In philadelphia, while there was there was prejudice against them. They had to start their own churches. Were shippedcans in churches with mixed parishioners and then were being told they had to worship on when Benjamin Rush drew up the first plan, the white churches were mad that it made them look like they were prejudiced. Abolition is incredibly important subject. But in many northern cities, the biggest issues day in and day out was making sure that free blacks have rights. So even these big picture issues are different in different states at different times. Fear that the 1 controls everything, i bet if you asked people during the founding era if the numbers and controlled to youing, they would, will, and they were the Continental Congress. Manyere were many, groups. T interest it satisfies some but leaves most unsatisfied. Out of the those picture, we put them in the position of having to ask from the outside for permission to story. He american so, in boston, a large group of people of color come forward language that will be in the declaration of an enddence to petition to slavery. That, oh, boy, we get the circle. And folks, we are asking for a broader circle from the if we cantd recognize that, we lose what is important. We just tend to not give them that credit. Anything else . I think it has been pretty well covered. Is how do the me Founding Fathers get through two different economic systems that existed . Was aced oneconomy slavery. How did they get there based on slavery. How did they get their question and theres a lot of research. That showsbook northern complicity in slavery. You can make an argument that the economy is are slightly different. They are intertwined. They would use those tools out in the field. I do think its a negotiated twoess, but i think the economies are more intertwined than we have seen previously. Think it is better to see america up through the civil war as being a combination of state and not a federal country. Today in and day out i think the states made more difference and ,henever states rights comes up whenever the federal government does not want to be involved in Mental Illness, we go back to the states. The states have to take care of the people with medicine. The state federal thing has always existed. In the late 1800s, what passes for the federal government is most unrecognizable. If youre looking for National Trends, im not sure there was a national. One of the things i would argue is to not only look at the founders, but at look at more and more characters of the founding area founding era. To understand their lives. The cousin im not sure we had National Trends back then. They are incredibly important to read because keep in mind slavery is entirely important. It was not being debated as the subject during all that time. It is a state world with a small federal government, not the washington we have today. Up here. Balcony. Something that is pretty divisive right now is the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. Curious about what your definition would have been periods would have been . Not my area of expertise. In your 200, this almost 300 podcast episodes . We did not cover impeachment. Benjamin franklin worked for opponents of impeachment. They looked at precedents. Keep this wanted to one of the things they wanted this concept of high crimes and misdemeanors. In england there was a Close Association with treason and they did not want to execute anybody for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. Broad, and what they were trying to say was, in the , if we the executive undermine Peoples Trust in the government, you could list Something Like that under high crimes and misdemeanors, but clearly people are debating that today, legal scholars who are more qualified than me. Debate. A big the first president was washington. He was not really an elected president. There was a moment when it fell on adams in a big way. Whether adams should be a king president , that was part of what people talked about what was wrong with the executive without talking about the word impeachment, but really what the role of the executive was going to be. The First Executive was not a person. He was revered. Adams was the first one to be president and about what he was going to do. I think it gives you a sense that people did not know until it was washington. Towashington was a hard act follow. He stepped into a job and a career path in many ways he had not anticipated, except in the abstract. In adams andlict what he accepts in crime and season and and treason and alien and sedition act type products. That humanizes them a great deal be reminds us why it should pointing out the flaws in the marble rather then making more monuments to these men at times. Microphone. The wait for the microphone. Always leave and needs of the states may not have been fully aligned. Letters that you have sources,ther primary with the conversations about how they should expand into these various needs that might come about and weighed the balance of decisionmaking . I was thinking of the northwest ordinance. Congress outlined the northwest ordinance to add the states, what we now think of as the midwest, into the union. This is a process of voting for statehood is how do we overcome all of these regional differences. Look at texas, right. They have their own revolution. The texas government is failing. At first the United States government is like, no, we are not going to admit texas. That is as far as i got on that. But the true challenge with revolves really around the issue of slavery. That just points out there is so fundamental factors that cut across. The system of farming is not as critical as whether the institution of slavery will find a home north of the ohio river and that is the point on which the politics of westward expansion divide. We have fundamentally unresolved debates that ripple down to our own time. We have a similar focus, this question of the american character they are creating because along with all the land opening up in pennsylvania and ohio. You have the question of how are you going to defend it . Army . Need a standing the thing that colonial ricans have always peered feared and rejected . There is this question of incredible, wild optimism that america will be first among the powers of the earth. America will be first in culture. With that kind of optimism, i think that is remarkable. But they have not gotten tired yet they are ready to keep talking to people who think they are right, but in a completely different way. Theres a commitment to conversation, to dialogue. That surprises me, that energy. It keeps me reading. It represents different challenges to the country. I would say a good rule of some is if you are not seeing things that went on in the original 13 states, you are not looking hard enough. I think those challenges are hardwired in every aspect comes from increasing size, increase in population. I think most of the issues were already there and they are expanded upon with expansion of science, technology, and the economy. I think they are all there at the beginning and its easy to look hard. You talk about this stuff. It seems modern, but its a much smaller space. Striking at once. We have time for one more question. How did king george affect views of the presidency . I will take a go at that one. When he considers the revolution over, when he is standing outside george the thirds bedchamber when he is ready to present the credentials. This is the moment. Someone who would have been executed for treason is facetoface as a credentialed representative of a legitimate country. And its hard not to wonder what that first set of conversations was like. We have some sense of it from his letters home to john jay and its remarkable to think of these two men, welleducated. Maybe 50 something guys, coming from such opposite sides of the of bring usbut kind back to this idea of compromise and how we deal with Political Polarization. There it is. He is able to have a conversation with his king. Would one of you like to have some closing comments . It has been a very interesting conversation. I want to go back to the point of memory. We talk about the founders and we have revisited this story over and over each generation and our country is going to be celebrating the 250th anniversary of independence. Lets think about the and how it to engage sets our ability to define ourselves as a nation moving forward. We have a remarkable opportunity to use history as an opportunity to come across our divides during the next six years. I think we should do so here in boston. Its an opportunity for discourse. I think so. Any document that begins we the people is a living document. Weve a chance to change and evolve it. We can investigate all of the perspectives of the founding era. We have a terrific exhibit up that brings together different aspects and i would encourage you to check it out. I wrote a biography of one of Founding Fathers. He was a great observer of the entire pe people likeriod. Of the entire period. Sarah are so amazing. You would be amazed how Much Research how much history is not researched. It is more getting to know characters. I know from spending time with benjamin roche, there is so much more to learn about him and around him, some of this sets on andes of mental health, people and have made their decisions. Sometimes its wikipedia research. If you want to dig into any of the founders, keep in mind you might be the first person to ask certain questions ever. The stars get all of the attention. Dont assume everything you is in the past. Keep in mind, when you are worried about prejudice about last, prejudice about race, who the people were who wrote the history book. I had to do a lot of adjusting riding about rush just for the timing of when the books were writing adjusting about rush just for the timing of when the books were written. You have to keep that in mind. History tells us who we are and how we came to be who we are and they tell you a history book will tell you as much about the past it is written about is the time it is written in. I think one of the exciting things about the 250th anniversary of the revolution is how exciting and complicated it is. I think we will see a lot of exciting work come out. I think its really exciting news. Really great for a conversation and thank you to all of you for being here and your questions and also, kennedyy the edward m. Institute and the Massachusetts Historical Society of for posting this terrific panel. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] 20] youre watching American History tv, covering American History cspan style with event coverage, eyewitness accounts, archival thumbs, lectures, and visits to museums and historic places. All weekend, every weekend on cspan3. Tonight at 9 p. M. Eastern, in his latest book, syndicated columnist cal thompson examines and rise of nations. He is interviewed by amanda carpenter. We are not each other as enemies, as lincoln said. If we dont make this great experiment called democracy or a westitutional republic work, are going to expire. Theres no guarantee. Things are looking great, but when things are looking great, its time to shore up the foundations. 9 p. M. Eastern on cspan tv on cspan2. American history tv is on cspan3 every weekend featuring and programs on the presidency, the civil war, and more. Heres a clip from her recent program. Certainly lots of women and men were opposed to giving women the right to vote because how it might change, in particular, the family dynamic, but that was not the only reason antisever jests e opposed suffragettes were opposed to giving women the right to vote. You see how that came into the discussion and the debate. Usedbased arguments were on both sides of the suffrage giving women only the right to vote. We have a postcard from the association. I will read a couple of the the postcard makes to womens suffrage because it went out the in franchise meant of the knee grow state law. It makes pretty clear that Southern States in particular, especially since they had been available since the 15th , thement ratification discriminatory measures disenfranchise africanamerican men. It would undermine that effort. Banner. Ve this it shows women marching as well as the silent sentinel. Womens attention to suffrage to embarrass the president s. And embarrass the president. Women are home still did not have their full citizenship rights. Silent sentinels were picketing outside the white house during the war, and the wilson did not take kindly to their activities. As the u. S. Mobilized for war and begin to ramp up its engagement in that conflict, silent sentinels were harassed from the streets. Some of those women were arrested and also jailed. That talkcuments about women in particular. They are really protesting for their right. Silent sentinels mainstream,lar with they were appalled these women were in prison for demonstrating for the right. You can watch this and other American History programs on our website, where all of our video is archived. Thats cspan. Org history. Monday night on the Gary Schapiro talks about political ads on social media platforms. He is interviewed by bloomberg reporter rebecca kern. I do not think its fair to put it on facebook or others to say you should have to make this decision. I think there should be a way to deal with that that does not involve editorial judgment. That is for congress. I hope they make a decision that respects the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects everyone. It is torn up on college campuses, torn up by traditional media, torn up by attacks on facebook. The First Amendment is so central to who we are as a nation. I hate to see it eroded. Watch the communicators monday night at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan two. Cspan2. Approximately 4000 seminole indians are descendents of a who neverminole surrendered to the u. S. The majority were forced to move west of the Mississippi River to what is now oklahoma. Fax american at her visit to artifacts, a the seminole nation of oklahoma