Planned to go into the Foreign Service. I graduated from tufts. I was going to serve my three years in the air force as a rotc commitment and come back and go to Fletcher School of diplomacy, which is connected to tufts. Its part of georgetown. An fso, Foreign Service officer training school. But my experience in being arbitrarily treated by the federal government in the military soured me on working for the government, so i decided i changed my mind in japan to apply to graduate school and ive never regretted it at all. Any book that youve written that you felt was particularly challenging or perhaps you wanted to start off by finding or proving one point but along the way you found something quite different . Well, no, im not sure that i found something different. I had a sense already of the outline of the period that we became a much more Democratic Society by the early 19th century and that this transformed our culture in fundamental ways, and that became my book the radicalism of the revolution. And the emergence of a middle Class Society in the north changed changed things. And we forget that people like Martin Van Buren didnt think much of the founders. Its lincoln who rescues them. Martin van buren said, look, weve got to forget about those guys back there. They were aristocrats. Were living in a democratic world. Van buren is the first man to become president who had no credentials whatsoever. Thats not to say he had never won a battle, never been a great political figure, he hadnt written any great document. He was a master politician. He organized the best Political Party in the state of new york that catapulted it into the white house. Van buren represented a whole new generation that disparaged the founders because they were aristocrats. Its lincoln who when people prior to the civil war when people talk about founders, they didnt mean washington and jefferson, they meant john winthrop, william bradford, john smith. The founders of the colonial, 17th century founders. After the civil war, and i think largely as a result of lincolns foundation, the founders become the men that we celebrate. I think its an interesting transformation. Youve written this on this point, and ill get back to your writing style, but youve written this and its been said about you time and time again by book reviewers, professors, your colleagues, that a lot of historians found the founding to be kind of dull and not worth writing about. Its already been explored, especially post 1776, but you were different. You devoted a half a century to writing and studying about the founding. What made you see it differently than almost every other historian of the time and see that it wasnt a dull period after 1776, that was just a first inning . Well, thats a good question. I think i was when i came to brown there were only nine members in the history department, and we didnt have anybody teaching the colonial period, the revolution or the early republic. The next person took off around 1830, Andrew Jackson the Andrew Jackson administration, so i felt incumbent upon myself to teach a course i called the colonial period on the revolution. I said, i have to give a course on the early republic. By working up that course i suddenly saw the whole period from 1760, 1750 to 1820 as a whole. And i saw a transformation taking place that was extraordinary. In a way, the specialization of training in graduate school, you either were colonialists and you stopped with the revolution or you stopped with the founding of the constitution, or you were an early republic and you started with 1789 but most people were not trained to think of the whole period and i think that that having to teach that course forced me to think of the whole period in a new way. And i would attribute it to that. You and i talked before about one of the alarming things happening on College Campuses is were no longer focusing on the founders while the American Public in general, i think because of the sales figures of a lot of the Prominent Books that have been john adams, some of the mccullough stuff, while the public seems enthralled with the founders not so much on College Campuses anymore, would you let folks know whats happening in terms of the lack of teaching of the founders in leading institutions . Yes. Unfortunately many of the leading institutions, im not i have not been replaced, and thats true at harvard. Brad baylor has not been replaced. Princeton has no senior person teaching american revolution. At yale, i think Joann Freeman wrote a book on hamilton, but her interests have gone into the early 19th century. Im not sure if anyone teaches the american revolution. Its declining. The dead old white males, what do we have to do with them . Our world is and i must say much of the graduate education now is focused on race and gender issues. And thats understandable, those are issues that are part of our time, but it means the founders themselves are neglected. And i think thats unfortunate. Fortunately, there are these people who are part of your program who have no academic credentials, david mccullough, ron chernow, lynn cheney, there are dozens of others who are writing the books that you people read. Joe ellis and i are rare birds. That is, were academics who happened to write this quasi Popular History that reaches out beyond the academy, but for the most part most historians are writing for each other. Theyre like physicists writing papers, and to try to read an article in william mary quarterly or one of the historic journals requires knowledge of what previous historians have said because theyre talking to each other. And thats understandable. Theyre trying to expand the discipline, and good things have come out of that, but it does mean that they neglect their responsibility to reach out to the public. Physicists dont have to do that. Theyre proof of what theyre doing comes in the in the invent of the nuclear weapon. But historians cant just talk to each other, theyve got to reach out. Its the kind of discipline that needs to be spread to the general public, and i just wish more of them would attempt to do that. But thats not how you get ahead in the academic world. You write for your peers, and in essence the quasi science. Given this lack of focus on the founding now on so many College Campuses and as someone whos not only writing about it, teaching about it, but engaging audiences like this, as a consequence, what would you say is one of the things that the public gets wrong about the founders . What mistakes . What misplaced assumptions do we have about it . Its not just the general public, but i think the greatest danger in historical writing or historical reading is to assume that the people back then are like us, and thats why i always quote to i always quoted to my graduate students that opening line of l. P. Hartleys great novel, the gobetween when he said the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there. And i think that should be the mantra for graduate students when they start or anyone who is reading. Dont expect those people to be like us, and if you do, you create an anachronism. You read back into their behavior. Its hard for us to understand hamilton engaging in 11 duels. 11 duels. He only exchanged fire in one which was deadly. He was involved in duels. We dont have duels anymore, but you need to enter another world to explain why that was considered to be a necessary and rational action for him to be involved in these duels. They usually got involved in negotiations and eventually they would resolve without exchange of fire, but to enter that world you have to open yourself to a different world, just as if you go to france or italy or even england and say immediately notice that theyre not like us and start complaining, then youre missing the point of foreign travel. And its the same the same thing is true going back into the past. Go with an open mind. Try to understand why they do things differently. On that point in trying to get back into that historical mind set, ive spent my adult life studying the founders, and i still feel like i dont understand George Washington and i dont really know thomas jefferson. This is one of the topics we discussed last week with professor ellis. Would you say that washington and jefferson are difficult to understand, difficult to know and maybe intentionally so, they made it that way, and how do you then go about researching them and unmasking them and presenting them to us . Well, i agree that both of them are difficult. I mean, i think theyre very different people. Washington, as i say, was caught up in the these values. He was an auto didact. He wanted to be the perfect gentleman and he worked at it. The first document we have in his collection is the rules of civility. 16yearold kid carves these out from a french miss manners book, how he should behave. Dont stick your tongue out when youre talking. A whole host of things. He was going to be the perfect gentleman. You know, he had a disadvantaged background by his standards, and he wanted to learn to be an aristocrat as far as 18th Century America had aristocrat. So he worked at it. Jefferson has the same goal, but jefferson was really he was by far the most knowledgeable person in america. He knew more things, i think even more than franklin. He knew more and knew more things than any Single Person and he has a sense of separation from his peers. You know, why does he build this house on montacello . It was kind of a crazy thing to do because its impossible to bring water to it. He wanted to be above his peers, and he saw himself as different from them and was obsessed by that. Just wanted to be better than they were, smarter. He knew more. He read more widely. He was a connoisseur of all the arts and i think tried to show off a little bit. They all bowed to his judgment. Even wine. I mean, after president s began consulting him, what should i order for the white house, mr. Jefferson . He just knew about the world and told them about it, and they respected him for that. And i think theres nobody that came close. Washington certainly knew that jefferson was more knowledgeable, more intellectual than he was, but washington had other talents that jefferson respected. He was a born leader. He just exuded leadership. He had, as adams said, the gift of silence. That is knowing when to keep quiet and not make a fool of yourself. Washington was extraordinary and by far i think the most impressive. I mean, we group all these founders together, and weve done a terrible thing by collapsing washingtons birthday into president s day. His he stood head and shoulders, both literally and figuratively, above them all. They respected him as their superior, and i think we need to recognize that. He simply was and explaining that is not easy because how many battles did he win . I mean, what is it thats the secret of his appeal . I think its a complicated story, but it can be explained. And i think i think hes just the greatest of the president s that weve ever had. He certainly should be number one, and he was the greatest of these founders. Earlier in the greenroom you and i were talking about world war ii and a new book and we were talking about the gifts and genius of general montgomery and the gifts and genius of general eisenhower. You had some interesting assessments that you made. Right. Would you share that with the audience . Ive been reading just recently a biography of montgomery by nigel hamilton, a wonderful biography, and very defensive of montgomery but critical, too. But at any rate, montgomery became aware of montgomerys great talents as a field commander, but his inability to deal with people, he lacked all political skills. And if he had been the commander in chief, the thing would have been a mess. You have eisenhower who has almost no field command experience or ability, but he was a genius for bringing diverse views together and satisfying a bunch of egos. What struck me as im reading about eisenhower and montgomery is that washington combined both in himself. He was a field commander. He was out there in the field often quite dangerously so. He put himself in positions he should never have done, but he was able to make decisions, command decisions, but at the same time he had this enormous political skill. He knew how to mend his political fences. He kept the congress on his side and even though there were plots, not amounting to much to kind of unseat him in favor of gates who was the victor at saratoga, nobody pressured him too much because he was such a superb politician. That is to say in a good sense. He knew how to keep diverse interests together, and i think he held that army together. Theres no doubt of that, almost by sheer personality. In addition to all the accolades that professor wood has, when you talk to historians and talk about him, one of the things that always pops up is hes such a good guy, nice guy, and hes so humble. Backstage earlier this morning when we were talking about this before we exchanged our analysis of washington based on the generals in world war ii, professor wood tells me, let me qualify my comments, im just a novice in world war ii. You dont need to qualify your statements. In terms of thomas jefferson, you know, when youre reading jefferson, hes so complicated, so complex and, you know, he sometimes seems as though hes writing with an eye to history and hes writing as if he doesnt really want us to know him. The other person who seems so complex is ben franklin. So could you share with us on these two, what pops out to you when you read jefferson . And i think you i read in one of your books when you were talking about ben franklin might be one of the most complicated and complex of the founders. Yeah. Franklin, of course, is world famous. He was by far the most famous american in the 18th century. You have to think of it you know, he made major original contributions to science, pure science on electricity and if there had been a nobel prize in the 18th century, he might have been a contender. So its not that kind hes not a tinker. Hes not an early version of thomas edison. Hes a real scientist. The fact that he was an american stunned the world. They thought of america as a bunch of mongrel people who were hardly capable of any kind of acts of civilization. Most of the western european aristocrats, so when franklin makes this achievement hes celebrated. Dr. Franklin. Hes given honorary degrees and celebrated as a great genius. The fact that he had no education, no college made it even more impressive. And, of course, he was ironic and sly enough to play that role to the hilt, and of course he was i think our most famous diplomat. He almost since singlehandedly brought the french into the war, extracted loan after loan, i mpoverishing the grench government creating the background to the french revolution simply by creating this role that the french aristocracy fell head over heels. They were caught up in radical chic. They were singing songs in favor of america and liberty. This was in the 1780s without any awareness of the future consequences of this and franklin played that role. He would show up at the court of versailles which is the most protocol ridden court in all of europe and he would show up in a plain linen coat with no sword, none of the dress that youre supposed to wear at versailles. It would be showing up like today at the court of saint james in front of Queen Elizabeth in dungarees and a tshirt. That would be the kind of thing that but the french aristocrats loved it. They just celebrated. And he played his role to perfection. And i think was able to bring the french kept the french going, not just with their army but, of course, more important was the money. They loaned america enormous amounts of money. Franklin but the interesting thing is franklin came late to the revolution. He really wanted to hold the empire together. He spent most of his adult life up to 1776 in england itself and of course his son became a notorious loyalist, governor of new jersey. New jersey. Franklin comes very late, and only i think its the the british aristocrats had given him a big position under secretary of state in the american department, for example, he might have been lost to america because he loved london. He loved england. And its only because they turned on him and i think angered him so deeply that he he became an american. He only leaves from you know, from 1757, despite a brief 12month period in 1764, from 1757 to 1775 hes in england. Hes in england. He thought the stamp act was okay. He didnt like it, but he thought that would cause some problems. Well, empires cost money. Weve got to he was stunned. He got a friend appointed stamp agent in philadelphia. It almost cost his friends life because the mobs attacked him. Franklin had a very hard time adjusting to american opinion. He was way behind it, but he finally caught up and then becomes a superpatriot as a consequence. When he first arrived in may of 1775 and is elected immediately to the continental congress, many people thought he was a spy, a mole. Thats why he writes this famous letter to his friend, you are my enemy and im yours and he circulated it but never sent it, because he wanted to show that he had cut his ties to england. He had to disabuse people of his loyalties to england, so he becomes a superpatriot attacking the king. And people were kind of stunned at how vicious he was. Thats because he came so late to the revolution. In terms of jeffersons complexities, one of the things we talked about last week with joe ellis is who can we learn more from today, jefferson or an adams, and i think on this point the two of you have a slight disagreement. Could you share with us . Yes. I just finished a book on adams and jefferson, which is due to come out later this year, so i know these two guys as well as i know anybody because ive Read Everything theyve ever written. Adams is a realist. Hes contrarian. He does not believe that all men are created equal. He says all men are created unequal, and from birth hes all nature, not nurture. Jefferson set forth, i think, the basic premise of americanism, which is all men are created equal. Distinctions that emerge are due to environmental circumstances. Now jefferson takes that back when he comes to discuss slaves, but by and large most americans, and i think right up to today, have bought into that notion, and thats why we spent so much effort and so much money on education. So jefferson set forth, as lincoln saw, the secret to americanism is this belief in equality, that we are all the same at birth and that we all in whatever distinctions emerge are due to effort and circumstances. Adams denied that. He also denied american exceptionalism. Jefferson creates the idea of american exceptionalism. We have a distinct kind of society. Were different from europe and we did have a different destiny. Adams denied that. He said were just as corrupt, just as vice ridden as any society in the history of the world and maybe more so. So adams message is not one that could sustain a nation. You cant imagine lincoln appealing to adams. Right. To to to sustain the effort to hold the United States together that lincoln had to do in the war. So adams has nothing to say about our nationhood. He simply is another realist, you might say. Hes contrarian. But he doesnt offer us any any any nourishment for our sense of nationhood, for our sense of being american. Jefferson does, and thats what lincoln saw. And i believe that for that reason despite the criticism, and jefferson has been horrendously criticized over the last 50 years, mostly because of his slave holding, his inability to do anything about it fundamentally, i think jefferson will survive. Adams, of course, his last words were jefferson survives. Technically thats not correct. Jefferson had died five hours before adams on the same day, july 4th, 1826, 50th anniversary of the jubilee of the declaration, but he was in a larger sense right. Jefferson survives and will continue to survive, i think, as long as the republic exists because his message is the basis of our nationhood. And adams hasnt got anything to say to that. Its jefferson we look to as the architect of this great new experiment that youve written so extensively about. Right. But in reading you, even though adams was a flawed person, contrary person, so forth and so on, you like him. Oh, you get to like him. Everyone did. Jefferson tries to explain that madison, who does not like adams, he says, look, once you get to know the guy, hes amiable, hes loveable. Jefferson is utterly polite in the sense that in a more narrow sense as well as the expanded sense i mention. Jefferson does not like any disturbance in a personal relationship. Hes quiet and he puts up a lot from adams. Adams will insult him. You know, hell make some or insult one of jeffersons heroes and jefferson just swallows it because and this is in their correspondence, in their retirement. Right. Their relationship is so important to both of them that jefferson does not react the way most human beings would because adams says things, he just jumps on jeffersons views. Jefferson, of course, loved the french revolution and believed in it right until the end, and adams cant help but practically say, i told you, mr. Jefferson. We got napoleon. Its all a mess. You were wrong. And jefferson puts up with that simply because he he knows beneath the surface adams is he loves him. He just says, hes a wonderful person. And i think thats the appeal of adams. Everyone who gets to know him realizes that he just has this capacity for love, and i think that that impresses jefferson. Jefferson doesnt have i think his closest friend, of course, is madison, but i never feel you never feel the relationship with madison is as close in some sense as it is with adams even though they share no Major Political views. They differed on religion, they differed on slavery, they differed on the nature of the United States, on equality. I mean, the only thing they shared, jefferson and adams, was the commitment to america and the revolution and yet its enough to hold them together. Although i think the correspondence is a little trickier than most people had said. You know, adams writes about four letters to every one of jeffersons, and he exposes himself. He just throws himself out. All of his inner feelings, and jefferson is very selfcomposed and very reticent. Yes. Never lets you know what he really thinks. And thats part of his notion of politeness. And he says this to many people, youngsters, dont tell people what you think about them because its rude and theyre not going to appreciate it. And so thats you know, a lot of advice for treating people, but it does lead to hypocrisy because privately he would say, the guys a scoundrel, i dont like him, but in his presence he would be very formal and very correct. And so when you do that you can be accused of hypocrisy, which is what jefferson was accused of. No one ever accuses adams of hypocrisy because he tells you what he thinks right to your face, practically. So thats what makes him redeems him in modern eyes, but in the eyes of his colleagues, many of them, they thought adams was mad. Insane, i mean. And in the 1800 election, of course, the two of them run against one another, and jefferson had been adams vp during his presidency. Right. That campaign in 1800 strained their relationship. Definitely. The relationship has so many layers of complexity. What twopart question. How did they repair that relationship after that difficult 1800 campaign . And related to that, the way you know the relationship is through the letters. When you read Jefferson Adams letters which all historians of this period, i think, have to, theyre almost trying to write for history, i get the sense, as theyre doing that. Right. Yeah. I think thats true. Theyre aware that posterity will read these letters. Adams forgets that because hes so exuberant and so freewheeling. The election of 1800 was devastating. Neither campaigned and neither said anything about the other publicly. Thats their followers who do that and make charges. Itsly the followers who say these kinds of things. Neither of them are quoted although privately they had damaging views about each other. It was very difficult to repair. In 1804 Abigail Adams makes an effort. She writes to jefferson when she learns that his daughter, who abigail had known, died. She writes a very consoling letter. Jefferson responds, but he makes a mistake. He said, mr. Adams and i have agreed on almost everything, except i have one complaint. He appointed all those midnight judges. Thats enough for abigail to sound off and say what do you mean. She comes in with charges against jefferson. Jefferson doesnt know what to say. He comes back and tries to apologize and they exchange a few letters, but abigails furious and writes him off. Adams realizes its over. In 1812 rush works on both of them and manages brilliantly to have them have each quoted and thats enough says jefferson. Rush manages brilliantly to have them quoted. He says he loves them, each of them individually, and thats enough for him. Adams makes the first effort. He says, im sending you some artisan products of boston to you, and jefferson, being so literal minded, writes a long letter on manufacturing in virginia. What adams sent him was two volumes of his sons lectures that had just been published. Then jefferson gets the gift and then he writes an apologetic letter. The correspondence goes on and they both appreciate it. They are aware theyre writing for posteriority, jefferson in particular. They avoid up through 1819 any talk of slavery. Jefferson makes a reference to it and adams pounces, goes into a long and jefferson pulls back and says no more. Its one of those subjects that they differ on and adams comes to realize he cant really push it because that will just destroy the relationship. So its an interesting correspondence and not as revealing as you would hope because jefferson restrains himself. Adams doesnt. So you get a onesided view. Thats so typical of jefferson and so typical of adams to be restrained and to completely put himself out there. So theyre being themselves. Right. A quick comment since were talking about founding fathers. Abigail adams was a remarkable woman and she had an interesting relationship with jefferson and interesting things to say about George Washington. Would you care to comment . Abigail is a marvelous character. The library of america just published some of her letters. Her letters are as interesting as johns. I suggested to them, because i did three volumes of adams accordance, and i said, you have to do something on abigail. She is unique among the founders wives. Martha destroyed all of her correspondence with george. Jefferson destroyed all his correspondence with his wife martha. They were private. And none of those wives were like abigail. Appear gail was intellectually alert, well read. She had no education. She was embarrassed by that and angry by it. Of course she writes that famous letter, remember the ladies, john. Shes not a modern feminist, but she was well aware of her feelings that women should be treated more equally. Jefferson comes to appreciate this. They exchanged letters to each other. Jefferson is sometimes flirtatious and she in hers in their letters. They knew each other in paris and then adams goes off to become minister in london so theres an exchange of letters. At one Point Jefferson writes to her and he says, notice that i use the word people instead of men. I hope you appreciate that. Obviously she had said to him at some point everyone talks about men. Why dont they talk about humanity or people instead of always men because women are included in the men. No. Jefferson makes this little comment, which i thought was very, very revealing. He was very impressed by her. He had never met any woman like her and obviously his wife was not like that. He thought, and he writes this to his daughters upon marriage, their duty is to look after their husbands and to acquire talents like knitting and french and reading things, but no politics. He couldnt imagine women, but abigail was as interested in politics as john and she let her views be known. She was tougher. She took a harder line on the act. She wanted them earlier. She had she was a hawk on so many issues. She wanted to go to war with france and its her husband holding back. So shes a fantastically interesting character in her own right. Absolutely. Joe ellis asked me to ask you this so i want to make sure i do. Would you say that the founders were predemocratic or antidemocratic . I think of them as predemocratic. Now, there is the constitution is created as a consequence of madisons mind too much democracy in the states. The state constitutions were created in 1776 and nobody in his wildest imaginations created in their minds anything resembling the federal constitution, which was created ten years later. Nobody imagined such a government. The articles of confederation are like the eu today. Each of the states were independent, had a certain integrity. When jefferson talked about his country, he meant virginia. Its sort of like the United States of europe today. So to create this National Government required something awful to have happened in the decade following the state constitution making, which are far more important in some sense then the federal constitution because the federal constitution derived from them. At any rate, madisons little working document called the vilss of the political system of the United States, which is a working paper, he never published it, he outlines what is wrong with the government. It isnt just the weakness of the articles. Everyone was agreed that some amendments had to be made to the articles. What he analyzes are what he calls successes of democracy in the states. The state legislators were running wild, an injustice of legislation. What he means by that is the majority tyranny. The majority were hurting minorities. The minority that hes concerned about happens to be one we dont think too much of, and that is creditors. But the principal is the same. He was worried and he wants to curb those excesses of democracy, but he doesnt want to go to the alternative, which many people suggested lets go to monarchy. Lets go to an authoritarian government. Sort of like when they couldnt govern so we get general c. C. Thats the conventional wisdom. You have too much democracy, you get monarchy. There were some fascinating and important alliances and relationships among the founders in creating what they did arguably two of the most important, which became partnerships would be the Jefferson Madison partnership and the washington Hamilton Partnership to the point where its hard to understand ones contributions without the other partner. Would you say a word on those partnerships . Jefferson and madison were the closest of any of these two partnerships that we talk about. They just simply madison deferred to jefferson and that and he just respected him, although madison was by far the shrewder and more practical minded person. Its probably very fortunate that jefferson was abroad in 1787 because he would have screwed up the convention. He definitely did not share madisons views about democracy in the states. He wanted an open convention. The convention took vows of secrecy, and in four months they met. Its unbelievable today, but for four months they met behind closed doors and no press involved. And madison said later, we could never have done it if the press were involved. Because then people make statements that they would have been committed to and they couldnt take it back. Thats the problem with the press. They come in and write up what you said on day one and then you want to change your mind on day five and you have an inconsistency. It never would have worked. Madison was quite right. Jefferson wanted the press there. He did not like the constitution. The only reason he comes around to it is because he had Great Respect for madison and madison convinces him that its going to be a good thing. As soon as he gets the bill of rights, which is one of the things that he had two objections, jefferson. One was the president was like the polish king, he could be reelected. I think in many cases they thought thats how it would work. The president would serve for life and die and the Vice President would serve for life and die the way the polish king did. He was elected and served until he died and then they elected a new king. It didnt work out that way because washington retired at the end of two terms, which is an extraordinary thing. No leader in the western world had ever done that. Again, thats what makes washington special. At any rate, the other thing he objected to is the bill of rights. The funny thing is the reason he thought he was upset because he says, my french friends, liberal friends, think a bill of rights is wonderful and every government should have it. Hes embarrassed with his french friends that theres a bill of rights. Madison gave him a long explanation of why there was no bill of rights, but it goes right by jefferson. He doesnt Pay Attention to it. Finally, this letter that jefferson wrote to madison, he also wrote to another person that the constitution lacks a bill of rights. It got publicized and the antifederalists make a great deal it have. That is, Patrick Henry in particular. So madison is forced to come around and say, all right, if we get this constitution adopted, i will work personally to get a bill of rights, which he does. In fact, in the First Congress he starts immediately amending the constitution and his federal federalists who supported it said, what are you doing, mr. Madison . You want to amend it . He said, look, i promised i would do this, and he does. We owe the bill of rights to madison. Madison almost didnt get into government because henry hated him so much and he controls the virginia legislator. He ices him out of the senate which is where he wanted to go. Then madison says if im going to get into the government, ive got to get a representative to be in the house. Henry redistricts his district and then recruits this young war hero as an opponent, james monroe, to run against madison. Madison has to make a speech, which he hates. The idea of having to make a speech, this gives you an idea of how different their politics was. He did not want to descend to this grubby practice of electioneering it, as he calls it. But he does and he promises hell create a bill of rights if elected, and he does get elected and becomes the major figure in the house of representatives for the first two terms. The other partnership with washington was with hamilton, and hamilton comes in with a program, a Fiscal Program modelled on new england that stuns James Madison. They had been collaborators in the federalist papers and they both wanted a strong National Government, but madison had no idea that hamilton had this british model in mind, a fiscal military state, and thats why he goes into opposition. Its never been easily explained why do you have James Madison who is a nationalist in 1787 suddenly becoming a states rights opponent of the government in 1782 . And i think its explained by the nature of the fiscal military state that hamilton is building. Hamilton is a modern man in that sense. Hes really an 18th century figure. Hes really napoleonic. This celebration of hamilton that were getting of the musical, the show, is misleading because theres no doubt that hamilton is no modern american in the sense that hes very antidemocratic. He thinks democracy is a bad thing and he wants to he knows that its the problem of america, he says, and he wants to create a modern state that could be able to take on the european states on their own terms, that is with a standing army, a large navy, a whole industrial military complex. Its so contrary to what jefferson and madison have in mind that they go into opposition and the election of 1800 repudiates almost everything of hamiltons views. People dont realize how little of hamiltons creation survives. The bank survives because it was given a charter for 20 years, but even then when the charter ends in 1810, there is no resubscription of the bank. So hamiltons program is undone almost completely by jefferson and madison. Hamilton looks good to us today because well, he would have delighted in the pentagon. A big, big state, a powerful army, many men and women under arms. That was his dream. Thats what he wanted. Thats not at all what jefferson and madison wanted at all. They wanted a small, minimal state and federal government that involved itself only in Foreign Policy and leaves Everything Else to the states. A completely different view from hamilton. Do you have a favorite founder . And on two levels in terms of his contributions to the forging of this nation, but also someone you think you would like if you had a chance to meet the person . Well, theres no doubt that washington is head and shoulders above all the others. Without him, the thing would not have succeeded. He really holds the army together. Theres that great moment in newburg in march of 83 where he comes as close to a military coup that weve ever had in history. 50 officers want to take over and march on congress. Its a military takeover which happens elsewhere in the world even today. It doesnt happen because washington stops it by this impassioned speech that he gives. Its a kind of band of brothers speech, and he says, look im modernizing what he says, but he says, i was with you. I lived in a tent. I didnt go into Winter Quarters like general howell and go live a life of luxury. I didnt go back to mt. Vernon during the winter. I was with you at mt. Vernon. I was with you at valley forge. I was out in the field with you. Were a band of brothers. He has them in tears by the time he ends because he pulls out a letter to read by some congressman who says were going to do something for the army and so on. He pulls out his specspectacless glasses, and there is a gasp because many of the officers had not realized he needed reading glasses. He looks up with just Perfect Timing and says, yes, gentlemen, i have grown nearly blind as well as gray in the service of my country. At that point they all break into tears. He was, as adams said, he was the best actor of the presidency weve ever had, and its true. Washington had a real sense of drama. He loved plays. He put them on for his and there is no doubt this was a performance. But it was a brilliant performance and it broke this crowd this coup. So we owe a lot to him. His presidency was without him the country wouldnt survive. He represented people were had been raised in monarchy, when washington takes over when hes going from mt. Vernon to new york to take the oath of office, people said, long live George Washington. People said, may you reign over us. He said, dont worry, im want going to be a king. I have no children to pass on this thrown to, so dont worry about me