In conflict a and improv. Hee time i tend to focus on is the early part of that arc and thats the improvisational nature of that that really fascinates me more than anything else. The United States was a republic. People knew that they were trying to do something that wasnt that. Beyond that there was a lot of open ground. There is a lot of improv in those early decades about what the nation isns the nations. How is this new nation going to get any degree of respect and equally they are concerned. On every level. There is a broad kind of ideological level in which that is true. I who is going to on the land and house that land. What kind of a rights will some people have. A lot of the questions that we are happily with now they go back to the beginning of the republic and beyond. Living in a moment that thehe moment that im looking at now. And they go all the way back. We werent a monarchy. And americans have a very strong sense or elite right. They thought they were creating a more democratic regime that have been done around before. There was a reason why there was a bill of rights attached to the constitution. Everyone well had rights. There were two different points of view with the founding. It is less democratic. Even so a pretty limited view of democratic. There are all kinds of words that you have to think about the meaning of. You really had to rethink and recalculate what youre talking about. How may points of view were there back then. Was that the case back then. They werent thinking in the way that we think about harding. G. If you beam yourself back. They were assuming that a National Party like the idea that the nation could get something that over arching that that many people would buy into amongst all of these diverse states. That would not have occurred to them. Even beyond that they didnt think a National Party was a good thing. In the National Center those viewpoints would bang up against each other. That is the point of the National Center. They were assuming that there would be two or three viewpoints. Even under those umbrellas. It was more of a specter than a category. What were some of the improvisations that did not succeed. And some that did. Other words wonderful things about studying and writing about the founding as they put all kinds of things in writing that you dont expect to put in writing. I dont want to look like that european aristocrats. Should i strip some of the. Lace away or washington. Only horses with the carriage were appropriately american. It sounds trivial and goofy. And thats part of why its so much fun to teach. They are thinking about the fact that those kinds of little stylistic decisions are really can shape the tone and character of the government and everything sets a precedent that can of improv can have a big impact. On the one hand its almost a because it seems trivial. We have several hundred white male elites forming this country with their buyin. There is a small group of elite people that had power. T the revolution was a popular revolution. Its important to remember that what is ever going on in this time the elites had power and theyre very worried about it. There is a lot happening around them and part of the challenge and the difficulties. The American People figuring out how to voice what they want how does a system work for them and if it doesnt work for them what can they dooe but its not just a handful of elite guys. They have the power but the American People understood in a broad kind of sense that they had rights in some way in different kinds of people have a different kind of understanding of what rights. Whatever the experiment was that rates were something that were still being worked out and determined. Er a what was awake and what did he believe. Them and answer answer the question by moving ahead in time this gets back to your earlier question about parties and categories. People like to go back in time and draw Straight Lines between the parties of the president in the past. There are no Straight Lines in history. And theres certainly no Straight Lines when it comes to political parties. W they bounce back and forth. The names change all the time. For a while of the democratic partyy which was its own thing on the one hand i wasnt really a party. We dont like jackson and what they represent. You end up with two main parties and one of them is jackson democratic supposedly popular. On the one side. You have the wigs that are more centralized. Really represent a very different point of view. If you are governor of massachusetts in president of the United States at that time who held more political power. Wh the founding or whenever i wanted to be. If you go all the way back to the real founding moment. There were people like hamilton and the federalists. Thatng assumed that it would be encompassed above and beyond the constitution. It was really brief for what it does they thought the answer to that question would be the governor of massachusetts. For people their loyalties in sense of belonging and their understanding of power is still something to be grounded in their state overtime that shifts in the 19th century certainly the first half if you were to pick up a newspaper from that Time Congress would be getting a lot more attention. We assume the all powerful. Allpowerful. As an early american way. I dont know if this is purposeful or if i missed it the president does it play the large role that the president plays today in our world. Ar i think that is partly deliberate and partly reflects my interest. Y throughout this time the americans understood that the present was significant. S congress as the people understand. Its really where the nation is being worked out in a groundlevel kind of way and they felt like they have a direct connection. When they stood up and spoke particularly when you get into the 1840s and 50s they assumed they were speaking to the constituents. I think in ways b nowadays are more focused on congress for different reasons. That was not necessarily the n ncase. In the early republic i dont think we would recognize it. The early republic in some ways might be what we assumed congress should look like somewhat team are it is a group of men white men in a one dash mike in a room. They are making decisionsns and those are the things that we should assume congress will do overnight dash mike overtime. And in that case i think it begins to look what we would not expect. They are an apt metaphor for congressac in the decades before the civil war. Yes there was union shaking decisions. Y it was a spit spattered raga. I have its admirable moments but it was an assembly of demagogues. N my assumption about what most people think about. It is that they were a bunch of people in black suits being lofty. Its very important for me right off the cuff to say this is a really human institution. Its an unruly institution. Its a different world than you assume. In the book is about this human institution. The americans understanding of the nation. What is an affair of honor . Good question. Part of the list i make in that book. The point of the affair of honor or even a dual its very counterintuitive. Ea if you had two men on the field. Someone must be trying to kill someone. The point of an affair of honor is to prove that you are willing to die for your honor. Very often and that that can take place. You dont even have to make it out to unduly new ground. Once you get past that point even at that point death is not the point. Its the performance of it. That is a terrifying thing. That is the point of it. To prove that you are the kind of man in this leader who is willing to die for your name and reputation. It clearly made so much sense to them with hundreds of people. Why are we taught at the beginning of u. S. History about the hamilton duel of 1804. Sometimes history ends up being about good stories. You get jefferson versus hamilton. You get the caning of charles sumner. I think if people teach it they teach it as teacher as the one and only instance it is somehow typical of that time hamilton and burr are dramatic characters. I dont think at least until recently has that been taught as a way of getting deeper and understanding something about the depths of politics. And how they really work. What happened on that day and why did it happen. Burr and hamilton had certainly been upon us for a long time. Largely the fuel behind much of that opposition. It was someone who is simple dash Mike Hamilton saw as an opportunist. Early on in their relationship. Mac in 1792 pretty much a direct quote. That is some serious opposition that you have going there. He is pretty bound and determined to squash the career. Ends up being a tie between two candidates from the same party and they stepped forward to do everything they can do. I think they came near fighting a duel at that point. Hamilton once again steps forward to do everything someone steps forward after thatep he needs to prove that he is a man and a leader worth being far old dash mike followed. He acts on that and it happens to be hamiltons words. He was handed something that was dual worthy. They exchange these letters it doesnt go swimmingly. They usually say those kind of letters when you initiate. I heard you say this about me is that true or false. If you get one of those letters you knew you were and dueling territory. The response was not ideal. He uses 18 words for one word. Heos said still more distant despicable about him. Lets talk about the meaning of despicable. Is despicable that bad of a word. If you are an angry person who had just been called despicable. To show he is not afraid. I always stand behind all of my words. B i will stand in im willing to fight for any words that i utter. That is not a strategically smart thing for hamilton to send that kind a letter. A gentlemanly thing to do. L so now they are both offended. Was doing legal. That was a statebystate thing. Every state have its own anti dueling. I challenge might be against the law. The punishment was different i think there was a fine so if you were in massachusetts it was a lot less daunting it was of the lawmakers doing the dueling. It tells you a lotre about the kind of power they have. Do we spend too t much time talking about the actual duels in the set up to this or is it a microcosm of whats going on and in the country at the time. There is a lot of dueling i think the practice of doing is worth looking at. It does tell you a lot about elite politics. I can tell you a lot about the emotional guts of some of the politics of the time but it shouldnt stand in should stand in for all dueling. The Vice President of the United States killed the former secretary of the treasury. If youre going to focus on the dual. I think for too long it stood in for a lot of other things. Ehrenberg did not get elected governor of new york. He was very effective at helping to smash his career. I dont think he wanted to kill hamilton. Most dualist dont go to a dueling ground really wanting to kill. He is ask about a dr. Like we dont need doctors lets just get it over with. I think he assumed it would be b tragically he has become the villain of this villain of American History for killing hamilton and i dont thinknky that was his aim and i think that was his purpose in going there. What was his lifelike after that. All of the enemies you then become a rat widespread practice and vulnerable for having murdered someone. All of the enemies come together. And they try to squash him. The boat men who rode them across. Lee new york. He hands up in South Carolina where he hides out a little while. It was a good place to be. E. He is Vice President. He goes back to washington. He bto finishes his vice presidency. He is clearly at neck and we sticking around for the second serm. The ends up going out wests ands unclear what hes doing out west. He appears to be marching around with young men with guns. Somehow he could see it as a new frontier where he might be able to have a different kind of power. Re he gets tried for treason he is acquitted but what frontier is left there. He ends up exiling himself for a while in europe. He hangs out with william godwin. Its the bizarre kind of life. In his old age he comes back to new york hes kind of a tourist attraction. People like to go to his law office and peer in the windows. Snubbed in the street. I still think it is a sad ending there are a lots of accounts of members of congress when he comes back what they say about him as you can see the fatigue in the anxiety of dealing with. I dont think he has an easy end of life. O one of only two politicians that ive seemed he actually says this. He is engaged in politics almost a direct quote. Its pretty direct. I dont think he is only one founded that. He is enjoying the game hes just more honest about the fact that hes enjoying it. It is charles pick me from South Carolina. As the other one who said he considers politics fun. There might be others going around there. And i dont think ive come across it that many times. It does not mean that i agree with that. I am someone who finds him fascinating the hamiltonian in the sense that ive spent a lot of time and energy trying to understand him and why he did what he did i think many scholars find a question or person or apollo problemro that have grabbed them. Besides the size the 10dollar bill. And that relatively wellknown musical whats his legacy. One of the things at the time he was known for and has had in some ways a mixed legacy. He was someone somewhat at a really early point believed that the National Government needed to be strengthened and that was at a point where it really wasnt strong. During the revolution. One of the most fervent supporters. Helps pushed through to the Constitutional Convention. Is in the first term pushing to centralize in mpower things we can now look back from the longterm and say at the time certainly it mattered a lot someone that was pushing in that direction. Helping to create the National Structure that we take for granted. I want to play a little bit of audio and let you listen to this and tell us what we are listening to. Joann freeman what are we listening to. That is the ten dual commandments from the hamilton musical. Which talks about the rules of dueling and its largely taken from a chapter of the first book. It talks about the birth hamilton dual. Did you have a part apart in the hamilton musical. Certainly as i discovered after. What was comical is that i mostly discover that the first time i went to see that play off broadway. I was in the audience. I was sitting with a friend. That song came on of course i said to the dueling song. And then it started going. That sounds remarkably freeman like. The book that its based on. As a biography of hamilton. I cant really be made. It refers to a document that i found at the New York Historical society about the dr. Turning his back so he could have deniability. I turned to my friend and i said thats my document. When i got to talk later on. That was kind of a mind blowing experience. How accurate is the musical. It is a piece of musical theater. They did a lot of work to make people aware of the time. It does some things that as a historian reminds people about the contingency of that moment. There are no of course is when youre in the moment. Thats part of what defines of the time i think the plate reminds people about the contingency and also taught people that these were real people. Real people feeling their way through a process not a bunch of blocks of rubble. That said there are many things that are in accurate and presented in the play. Like the institution of slavery. D s not really discuss. To me going to see a piece of musical theater my response is more there is a lot of history in there more than i wouldve expected to see. It has ant lot thats wrong in it. That has made this a profoundly wonderful teaching moment because i think so may many people in particular young people have become and youed in the timeg can grab hold of that and you can basically say i know youre interested in that let me teach you about what really happened. Let me teach about the reality of everything that happened around this. But being wrong in some ways its created a great teaching opportunity. You do tweet a lot. Interesting and my hamilton and Jefferson Jefferson seminar today i ask how many have seen hamilton or near the music to judge him it dash Mike Hamilton mania. Then i read applications for the course in a majority mention the musical may be ebbing but it have an have an impact. I want to say they can read your treat tweets on tv. I tend to ask what brought people to the class and i said i think its ebbing. Were not crazy about it anymore. The class is limited in size. And even the ones that preregister im curious what brings you to the course. And a lot of people said i liked the hamilton musical and it led me to have a lot of questions. Guess its not really advertising but its a course i love to teach. Except for that to weeks. Its all taught with their papers and writing. Theres no other history book that is brought in. E we look at what the two men thought about what america was. Its all primary sources in its very exclusively doesnt take sides and doesnt say that one is right and one is wrong. Just hands that brought evidence to the students and we grapple with it. Its different every time i teach it. G its what i find and focus on in those letters. It is different every single time. I clearly have read those letters many times. Its a really fun course to teach. In response to a former student you tweeted out about the john adams book. It was a same thing that sent more people into my seminars than anything else. I give students full permission to say whatever they want. Why are you in the course and the answer is it because republican has always been profound. There was a house down the street for this time and my dad loves us stuff and this stuff and now im curious about it. I never studied early america. For a while it was there is this john adams biography. And im curious now. And that was the thing. Sometimes students would say that. Wasnt necessarily that did it have students bringing it up. So maybe at this point because younger people are really interested that the older students dont want to be the music away. Because the younger people are more focused on it. Theres about 3