Transcripts For CSPAN3 History Of The Freedmans Bank 2015032

You come down the valleys of the tigris and euphrates. Mesopotamia did have some historical presence. There was a possibility, and i talk to people who know iraqi history better than i do, there was a possibility iraq could have developed as a reasonable country within those boundaries. But there were accidents in history. The good king died early. His son was a useless playboy who killed himself in a car accident. There was a boy who was not a good regent. That was a problem. You got a series of political movements in iraq. Then you had a series of military coups. Given a different history and different accidents, iraq might have developed in a different way. I always found the argument that if you draw boundaries, you cannot expect a country to grow within it. If you look at the boundaries of canada, they could not be more artificial. It is one Straight Line from the great lakes to the west coast. But a country has grown within those borders. You look at many african countries, National Feeling has developed. Whether things could have turned out differently, iraq i think was hopeful. Syria was cursed from the beginning because the french took a large part of syria and gave it to the syrians. Iraq has become a french country. It has problems but geographically made sense. Libya never made sense. Was two different provinces of the Ottoman Empire that was shoved together, never happily so. Yes, you can blame a lot on what happened in 1919. But i dont think you can blame everything. The trouble with the middle east is it is at a crossroads. Is costly being meddled with by outside powers. The iraq war did not help. Host one thing we admire about your work is you are able to put policymakers in the context of their time and understand the constraints under which they operate in the limits of the options. I think we should take 10 minutes or so to open it up for questions. I know there are some people here. Yeah. One second. There is a microphone. Introduce yourself. What i wanted to ask about is this issue of, and you said a lot about it quite in quite graphic terms, was wilson ill when he went to the conference . You made a point of the fact he had, although he did not choose a republican to be a member of the delegation, he had some pretty fancy people and minds on board the boat. He did not really meet with them much. When he got to europe, he was caught up in the celebration of the 14 points and the league that sort of thing. Was he somebody who had a heart event or something before it collapsed later in the spring, do you think . Professor macmillan i dont know. Theres a lot of speculation about wilsons health. He tended to have moments of total collapse. This was even before he became president. There would be times when he would have terrible trouble of his vision. Doctors were not sure what it was. I am not a doctor, but whether this was thrombosis, his health was always something of an issue. In paris, the work would have done it for most of us because they were at it from morning till night. The pressures on them were huge. There was a real sense of urgency. If we dont get a peace coupled together, the world could go into a worse state. When he came back from paris, he had what was described as flu. That could have covered a number of things. He was very sick. There is some speculation in editing the wilson papers. There is one thing in one of the volumes that said it could have been a stroke. He did begin to behave erratically after that episode. There is one curious episode when he came into the room with one of his secretaries and said i dont like the way the chairs are arranged. We should put the red ones they are and put the green ones there, which was kind odd. The secretary faithfully moved them around. Doctors 20 years ago thought it could have been a milder stroke than the one that feld him in the fall of 1919. Very difficult to know. But he was someone prone to sudden attacks which would lay him low. Post i think the general view now as he did have two minor strokes in paris. He had one in 1905 when he was president of princeton as well. Other questions, please. Barbara . There is a microphone, barbara. Introduce yourself quickly. I am barbara perry, the cochair of the president ial Oral History Program here. We talked about it a little bit last night at dinner. Lets say we could resurrect Woodrow Wilson from his final resting place in the National Cathedral in northwest washington and bring him to the miller center, and we would have you on the panel to ask questions. What would be the first question you would ask him . Professor macmillan do you want to go first . I would ask, are you sorry you did not compromise with the reservationist. Professor macmillan on the reservations that came attached to the treaty, the european leaders later said they could have worked with them. Whether they would have is another matter. He said if we had to, we would have accepted them because we wanted the United States in the league. I dont know. I might have liked to have pushed him on why he allowed more segregation rather than less in the federal service. I know he was a southerner, but this was a man who expressed high moral principles, was a great liberal. Why did he allow it . The federal post office, they began to segregate the offices. And this was happening elsewhere in washington. I would like to know his rationale for allowing that to happen. Host along the same lines, i think one would ask, do you think you went too far in terms of your implementation of the alien and sedition laws passed at the time . One of the principal books written about wilson and world war i makes the case that wilsons actions undid wilsons aspirations. The principal one was that he repressed his principal supporters along the progressive, left liberals during 1918 and 1919 and very much alienated them and could no longer rely on them to support afterwards. They felt incredibly alienated by wilson at that time. Yes, please. Thank you. Mary j. Abbott, retired Foreign Service officer. Could you briefly compare and contrast is this going out . Compare and contrast the league of nations and the United Nations . A couple of articles and how one developed from the other if that was the case. Professor macmillan the u. N. Certainly developed from the league of nations. The league existed until 1945. Initially, there was some talk of resurrecting the league and redoing it. They decided it was so much identified with the outbreak of the Second World War that it would not be worth doing so they decided to set up a new United Nations. Many of the League Organizations carried over into the United Nations. Some of the associated bodies of the United Nations have a longer history than the United Nation itself and many personnel carried over. I suppose the key difference with United Nations is the Security Council has five permanent members with vetoes. That was to reassure the great powers their interests would always be listened to. The problem is they reflect the wrong people. That was one of the key differences. What happened with the league is there would be four permanent members five permanent members and four elected, but they would all have equal votes. When the United States did not join, you had fewer permanent members and it was always the danger of deadlock. I think roosevelt was very concerned that the powers should be reassured that their voice would be heard in the United Nations, which is why the Security Council still has so much power. I would say that is the key difference with the league. I think also if you look at the United Nations, it was not as ambitious. It has some of the same provisions but is more cautious in its approach to conflict than the league of nations was. Therefore, i think the possibility of disappointment is less. In many ways, i think the leak league was a useful exercise is the wrong word, but it was a useful forerunner of the United Nations and introduced into our understanding and to the public the idea we could have International Organizations like this, which i think are useful. If we did not have them, we would be wanting to invent them. That is a short answer to a competent question. Host one last question. John waterson. Do you think it mattered that the United States did not join the league of nations, especially considering the pacifism and antiwar sentiment generally and the rejection of american participation in world war i that you see in the 1930s . Professor macmillan it is an interesting question. We will never know. I think if the United States had joined the league, it would have been a stronger institution and given an important noneuropean voice to the league. As it was, the United States was so involved in what was going on in europe anyway. When they tried to broker an end to the endless reparation questions, twice they were backed by the United States. At the conferences, the United States was there. The United States was often involved. I think if they had been more formally involved, it would have made the league stronger and served to educate American Public opinion. It by the 1930s, the United States was in the league, i wonder if you would have had the same isolationist sentiment. There was a lot of sentiment in europe for peace. There was a huge peace ballot in britain in the 1930s were happy Adult Population half of the Adult Population voted in favor of peace. That does not necessarily translate into being isolationist. The United States welded it into isolationism in a way that did not happen in europe, that you can want peace but still recognize you have to be engaged in the world. I dont know. It is very difficult. I think historians are now arguing that even in the 1930s, the United States was not as isolationist as we might think. There was a lot of talk, but the United States is still involved, particularly on its own doorstep. The Good Neighbor policy is a 1930s policy. The United States was still very concerned about what was going on in the pacific. Was not as if the United States withdraws completely. It is true there was isolationist sentiment. It was fueled by a sense of a lot of historians argue that the United States shouldnt have not gotten involved in the war. For a number of reasons, a lot of people thought we should have never gotten involved and should never get involved again. But you cant always choose your fights. Host that was a terrific last him question and wonderful discussion. We all want to thank you margaret, for coming and visiting us and a stimulating talk. Come again, please. Thank you. [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. 2015] you are watching American History tv all weekend, every weekend on cspan 3. Join the conversation, like us on facebook. Up next on American History tv biographer scott berg takes an indepth look at pierre lenfant, the architect who designed much of washington, d. C. Berg argues that he made many enemies and as a result his original design never came to complete fruition, leaving him to struggle with personal demons. This event is hosted by smithsonian associates. Mr. Berg thank you for being here. It is a pleasure. Thank you to the Smithsonian Institution director in particular, and of course to the David Logan Foundation for underwriting the series. Part of the series, as rebecca mentioned, is to have a chance to encounter the history of d. C. Through the eyes of a historian and those people who were instrumental in my own research. Im friends with all of them. All of these people you have had a chance to see in this situation, they all kind of know everything, but they all kind of know different things. It is a wonderful chance for you to sort of get a tour of the city and its history in a sort of condensed form. I think it is a fairly rare opportunity, so i do encourage that. It is a pleasure to be here and have a chance to talk about his plan for d. C. I want to book anend my talk with two brief readings from grand avenue. One from the start of the book one from the end, although no spoilers. I will read and edited version if you want to follow along. After the entire talk, of course i would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. This book opens in march of 1791 as the architect peer,ierre, was known as peter, or more to his liking, major he was a revolutionary war veteran and they call each other by their titles, something he was pretty adamant about. He sort of began the work on the federal city. The little bit that i will review, just a few pages reading rather than talk about it because it gets things moving, the book and the talk, but it is also a snapshot of who he was at that moment at this momentous point in time. Thank you for coming out in the cold and the rain tonight. This is a similar kind of meteorological situation as to what he encountered them, so you will have a little bit of sympathy for him. I am going to start with a bit of reading from the book, then move forward to talk about him and his plan. The book begins wednesday, march , 9, 1791. The major entered georgetown well after dark near the end of one exhausting journey, anxious to begin another one. He arrived on foot, blanketed by a steady rain, his breath visible, his overcoat wet, his boots caked with mud and his belongings packed onto his horse. His stagecoach had broken down many miles back, but the architect had not waited for another stagecoach. Eager to get to the banks of the river and finish what had promised to be the culminating work of a lifetime. The major was alone, unmarried without family in the United States, if there had been any romantic ties in new york city where he had lived for the last seven years, they had been cut. His father, once an accomplished painter, died years earlier. His mother was at home in paris leading a widows life sheltered by the kings soldiers and the bread riots wrote proliferating in the city. The french revolution was gaining steam, but he was not dwelling on the troubles in his homeland, hed already helped to bring about one revolution which is where his sites and thoughts remained. His name and talents were wellknown to many of americas most influential citizens, and his federal hall in new york was the most famous building in the nation. Now he embarked upon a task that he knew would eventually require the labor of many thousands of men and the out a of vast sums of money, a task it would either that you maintain the approval of the young nations most eminent leader, George Washington. Still, the major thought of himself as the man who would bring forests an entire city through the force of his will. He saw it as his destiny and he and his due. He carried a letter, dated the first of march, from secretary of state thomas jefferson. Jeffersons instructions approved by the president , gave him the task of surveying the area along the Potomac River near rock creek, bordering georgetown, and along the eastern branch, three miles to the southeast, in order that some section of that ground might be transformed into a new and permanent seat of government for the United States. The project was not just ambitious, it was unprecedented. The capital of a new world empire to be set down in a quiet and sparsely inhabited territory of hills, farms, and wetlands. The city would not take shape through the slow accretion of time. It would not happen, it would be made. If it were to succeed, it had to be created by one man. He had every expectation that his would be the hand holding the pencil, his the mind shaping the streets, squares, and monumental spaces. His the name most closely associated with the realization. It was indeed in need of a total imagination with two individuals who possess the reservoirs of commitment for its accomplishment, himself and the president. He had never failed George Washington in 15 years of service to the american cause and he would not do so now. The spring was shaping up to be dour and difficult and as he moved down the slope in the direction of the potomac past modest and wellkept structures, streets were quieter than usual thanks to the chill in the rain. The long journey would have awakened the twinges in his leg. He had taken the wounded during the siege of savannah when, as a Continental Army captain desperate for distinction he had rushed forward with a squad of men and a doomed attempt to set fire to a british infantry carrier. At close range is brief career in battle was ended and the resulting injury eventually were wired the use of occasion in his old age. The wound would eventually become a badge of honor, a credential that you would invoke again and again when he felt his adopted country had turned his back on him. He passed holmes, attorneys offices, dry goods emporium, barbershops, and Straight Line<\/a> from the great lakes to the west coast. But a country has grown within those borders. You look at many african countries, National Feeling<\/a> has developed. Whether things could have turned out differently, iraq i think was hopeful. Syria was cursed from the beginning because the french took a large part of syria and gave it to the syrians. Iraq has become a french country. It has problems but geographically made sense. Libya never made sense. Was two different provinces of the Ottoman Empire<\/a> that was shoved together, never happily so. Yes, you can blame a lot on what happened in 1919. But i dont think you can blame everything. The trouble with the middle east is it is at a crossroads. Is costly being meddled with by outside powers. The iraq war did not help. Host one thing we admire about your work is you are able to put policymakers in the context of their time and understand the constraints under which they operate in the limits of the options. I think we should take 10 minutes or so to open it up for questions. I know there are some people here. Yeah. One second. There is a microphone. Introduce yourself. What i wanted to ask about is this issue of, and you said a lot about it quite in quite graphic terms, was wilson ill when he went to the conference . You made a point of the fact he had, although he did not choose a republican to be a member of the delegation, he had some pretty fancy people and minds on board the boat. He did not really meet with them much. When he got to europe, he was caught up in the celebration of the 14 points and the league that sort of thing. Was he somebody who had a heart event or something before it collapsed later in the spring, do you think . Professor macmillan i dont know. Theres a lot of speculation about wilsons health. He tended to have moments of total collapse. This was even before he became president. There would be times when he would have terrible trouble of his vision. Doctors were not sure what it was. I am not a doctor, but whether this was thrombosis, his health was always something of an issue. In paris, the work would have done it for most of us because they were at it from morning till night. The pressures on them were huge. There was a real sense of urgency. If we dont get a peace coupled together, the world could go into a worse state. When he came back from paris, he had what was described as flu. That could have covered a number of things. He was very sick. There is some speculation in editing the wilson papers. There is one thing in one of the volumes that said it could have been a stroke. He did begin to behave erratically after that episode. There is one curious episode when he came into the room with one of his secretaries and said i dont like the way the chairs are arranged. We should put the red ones they are and put the green ones there, which was kind odd. The secretary faithfully moved them around. Doctors 20 years ago thought it could have been a milder stroke than the one that feld him in the fall of 1919. Very difficult to know. But he was someone prone to sudden attacks which would lay him low. Post i think the general view now as he did have two minor strokes in paris. He had one in 1905 when he was president of princeton as well. Other questions, please. Barbara . There is a microphone, barbara. Introduce yourself quickly. I am barbara perry, the cochair of the president ial Oral History Program<\/a> here. We talked about it a little bit last night at dinner. Lets say we could resurrect Woodrow Wilson<\/a> from his final resting place in the National Cathedral<\/a> in northwest washington and bring him to the miller center, and we would have you on the panel to ask questions. What would be the first question you would ask him . Professor macmillan do you want to go first . I would ask, are you sorry you did not compromise with the reservationist. Professor macmillan on the reservations that came attached to the treaty, the european leaders later said they could have worked with them. Whether they would have is another matter. He said if we had to, we would have accepted them because we wanted the United States<\/a> in the league. I dont know. I might have liked to have pushed him on why he allowed more segregation rather than less in the federal service. I know he was a southerner, but this was a man who expressed high moral principles, was a great liberal. Why did he allow it . The federal post office, they began to segregate the offices. And this was happening elsewhere in washington. I would like to know his rationale for allowing that to happen. Host along the same lines, i think one would ask, do you think you went too far in terms of your implementation of the alien and sedition laws passed at the time . One of the principal books written about wilson and world war i makes the case that wilsons actions undid wilsons aspirations. The principal one was that he repressed his principal supporters along the progressive, left liberals during 1918 and 1919 and very much alienated them and could no longer rely on them to support afterwards. They felt incredibly alienated by wilson at that time. Yes, please. Thank you. Mary j. Abbott, retired Foreign Service<\/a> officer. Could you briefly compare and contrast is this going out . Compare and contrast the league of nations and the United Nations<\/a> . A couple of articles and how one developed from the other if that was the case. Professor macmillan the u. N. Certainly developed from the league of nations. The league existed until 1945. Initially, there was some talk of resurrecting the league and redoing it. They decided it was so much identified with the outbreak of the Second World War<\/a> that it would not be worth doing so they decided to set up a new United Nations<\/a>. Many of the League Organizations<\/a> carried over into the United Nations<\/a>. Some of the associated bodies of the United Nations<\/a> have a longer history than the United Nation<\/a> itself and many personnel carried over. I suppose the key difference with United Nations<\/a> is the Security Council<\/a> has five permanent members with vetoes. That was to reassure the great powers their interests would always be listened to. The problem is they reflect the wrong people. That was one of the key differences. What happened with the league is there would be four permanent members five permanent members and four elected, but they would all have equal votes. When the United States<\/a> did not join, you had fewer permanent members and it was always the danger of deadlock. I think roosevelt was very concerned that the powers should be reassured that their voice would be heard in the United Nations<\/a>, which is why the Security Council<\/a> still has so much power. I would say that is the key difference with the league. I think also if you look at the United Nations<\/a>, it was not as ambitious. It has some of the same provisions but is more cautious in its approach to conflict than the league of nations was. Therefore, i think the possibility of disappointment is less. In many ways, i think the leak league was a useful exercise is the wrong word, but it was a useful forerunner of the United Nations<\/a> and introduced into our understanding and to the public the idea we could have International Organizations<\/a> like this, which i think are useful. If we did not have them, we would be wanting to invent them. That is a short answer to a competent question. Host one last question. John waterson. Do you think it mattered that the United States<\/a> did not join the league of nations, especially considering the pacifism and antiwar sentiment generally and the rejection of american participation in world war i that you see in the 1930s . Professor macmillan it is an interesting question. We will never know. I think if the United States<\/a> had joined the league, it would have been a stronger institution and given an important noneuropean voice to the league. As it was, the United States<\/a> was so involved in what was going on in europe anyway. When they tried to broker an end to the endless reparation questions, twice they were backed by the United States<\/a>. At the conferences, the United States<\/a> was there. The United States<\/a> was often involved. I think if they had been more formally involved, it would have made the league stronger and served to educate American Public<\/a> opinion. It by the 1930s, the United States<\/a> was in the league, i wonder if you would have had the same isolationist sentiment. There was a lot of sentiment in europe for peace. There was a huge peace ballot in britain in the 1930s were happy Adult Population<\/a> half of the Adult Population<\/a> voted in favor of peace. That does not necessarily translate into being isolationist. The United States<\/a> welded it into isolationism in a way that did not happen in europe, that you can want peace but still recognize you have to be engaged in the world. I dont know. It is very difficult. I think historians are now arguing that even in the 1930s, the United States<\/a> was not as isolationist as we might think. There was a lot of talk, but the United States<\/a> is still involved, particularly on its own doorstep. The Good Neighbor<\/a> policy is a 1930s policy. The United States<\/a> was still very concerned about what was going on in the pacific. Was not as if the United States<\/a> withdraws completely. It is true there was isolationist sentiment. It was fueled by a sense of a lot of historians argue that the United States<\/a> shouldnt have not gotten involved in the war. For a number of reasons, a lot of people thought we should have never gotten involved and should never get involved again. But you cant always choose your fights. Host that was a terrific last him question and wonderful discussion. We all want to thank you margaret, for coming and visiting us and a stimulating talk. Come again, please. Thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National<\/a> cable satellite corp. 2015] you are watching American History<\/a> tv all weekend, every weekend on cspan 3. Join the conversation, like us on facebook. Up next on American History<\/a> tv biographer scott berg takes an indepth look at pierre lenfant, the architect who designed much of washington, d. C. Berg argues that he made many enemies and as a result his original design never came to complete fruition, leaving him to struggle with personal demons. This event is hosted by smithsonian associates. Mr. Berg thank you for being here. It is a pleasure. Thank you to the Smithsonian Institution<\/a> director in particular, and of course to the David Logan Foundation<\/a> for underwriting the series. Part of the series, as rebecca mentioned, is to have a chance to encounter the history of d. C. Through the eyes of a historian and those people who were instrumental in my own research. Im friends with all of them. All of these people you have had a chance to see in this situation, they all kind of know everything, but they all kind of know different things. It is a wonderful chance for you to sort of get a tour of the city and its history in a sort of condensed form. I think it is a fairly rare opportunity, so i do encourage that. It is a pleasure to be here and have a chance to talk about his plan for d. C. I want to book anend my talk with two brief readings from grand avenue. One from the start of the book one from the end, although no spoilers. I will read and edited version if you want to follow along. After the entire talk, of course i would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. This book opens in march of 1791 as the architect peer,ierre, was known as peter, or more to his liking, major he was a revolutionary war veteran and they call each other by their titles, something he was pretty adamant about. He sort of began the work on the federal city. The little bit that i will review, just a few pages reading rather than talk about it because it gets things moving, the book and the talk, but it is also a snapshot of who he was at that moment at this momentous point in time. Thank you for coming out in the cold and the rain tonight. This is a similar kind of meteorological situation as to what he encountered them, so you will have a little bit of sympathy for him. I am going to start with a bit of reading from the book, then move forward to talk about him and his plan. The book begins wednesday, march , 9, 1791. The major entered georgetown well after dark near the end of one exhausting journey, anxious to begin another one. He arrived on foot, blanketed by a steady rain, his breath visible, his overcoat wet, his boots caked with mud and his belongings packed onto his horse. His stagecoach had broken down many miles back, but the architect had not waited for another stagecoach. Eager to get to the banks of the river and finish what had promised to be the culminating work of a lifetime. The major was alone, unmarried without family in the United States<\/a>, if there had been any romantic ties in new york city where he had lived for the last seven years, they had been cut. His father, once an accomplished painter, died years earlier. His mother was at home in paris leading a widows life sheltered by the kings soldiers and the bread riots wrote proliferating in the city. The french revolution was gaining steam, but he was not dwelling on the troubles in his homeland, hed already helped to bring about one revolution which is where his sites and thoughts remained. His name and talents were wellknown to many of americas most influential citizens, and his federal hall in new york was the most famous building in the nation. Now he embarked upon a task that he knew would eventually require the labor of many thousands of men and the out a of vast sums of money, a task it would either that you maintain the approval of the young nations most eminent leader, George Washington<\/a>. Still, the major thought of himself as the man who would bring forests an entire city through the force of his will. He saw it as his destiny and he and his due. He carried a letter, dated the first of march, from secretary of state thomas jefferson. Jeffersons instructions approved by the president , gave him the task of surveying the area along the Potomac River<\/a> near rock creek, bordering georgetown, and along the eastern branch, three miles to the southeast, in order that some section of that ground might be transformed into a new and permanent seat of government for the United States<\/a>. The project was not just ambitious, it was unprecedented. The capital of a new world empire to be set down in a quiet and sparsely inhabited territory of hills, farms, and wetlands. The city would not take shape through the slow accretion of time. It would not happen, it would be made. If it were to succeed, it had to be created by one man. He had every expectation that his would be the hand holding the pencil, his the mind shaping the streets, squares, and monumental spaces. His the name most closely associated with the realization. It was indeed in need of a total imagination with two individuals who possess the reservoirs of commitment for its accomplishment, himself and the president. He had never failed George Washington<\/a> in 15 years of service to the american cause and he would not do so now. The spring was shaping up to be dour and difficult and as he moved down the slope in the direction of the potomac past modest and wellkept structures, streets were quieter than usual thanks to the chill in the rain. The long journey would have awakened the twinges in his leg. He had taken the wounded during the siege of savannah when, as a Continental Army<\/a> captain desperate for distinction he had rushed forward with a squad of men and a doomed attempt to set fire to a british infantry carrier. At close range is brief career in battle was ended and the resulting injury eventually were wired the use of occasion in his old age. The wound would eventually become a badge of honor, a credential that you would invoke again and again when he felt his adopted country had turned his back on him. He passed holmes, attorneys offices, dry goods emporium, barbershops, and Furniture Stores<\/a> until he reached his destination just a few storefronts from the lapping waters of the potomac. The fountain inn was a twostory tavern hotel with a stable on the premises. Better known as sutters, thanks to the propriety of its host of wondering gentlemen. Lenfant was a distinguished arrival, sent by the president himself, but he made little time for conversation. Rather than settle to his rooms, he asked for directions and went back out to the damp towards the home of mayor thomas l. According to jeffersons instructions that is where he , was to make arrangements for the materials necessary for his surveying work. He was 36 years old in march 1791, and in good physical health. It is one of many blunt ironies of his life story that no authenticated image of him exists outside a single small silhouette made around 1785. Contemporary observers never quite agreed on the description. Supplying only a small outline of a man on the call side. At least in the time before his work on the capital he usually presented an elegant appearance and carried himself as a gentleman. Those who cross professional paths with him were unanimous in describing him as an unquenchable egoist, he was convinced that he was the only person who could do that work so well. He certainly wasnt the kind of man others thought could work until morning until they began. Mayor bell had no reason to be anything other than awful, it turned out that he knew nothing of the architects leaves. He was quickly able to establish his bona fides, but the mixup was vexing. How has jefferson, the second on matters in the city, failed to prepare them for this moment . He knew that the set survey eor had also taken a room. He was already four weeks into the arduous work of setting off a square, killed to this point. It contained the new seat of government. Workers had to be hired and paid tools procured, arriving in america early in 1777 as a temporarily commissioned lieutenant in the Continental Army<\/a>. Over the next six years hed risen to the rank of captain and finally to major as he experienced physical deprivation through the sacrifice of the war of independence. The list of men that he had befriended along the way included some of the most famous soldiers and politicians of his time. Still, that was only a prelude. This inchoate seat, the greatest of his ambitions would be fulfilled. The next day he rose to an unfortunate site. The rain through which eats log the night before had not lessened. The survey he was to perform jespersen jefferson required visibility. High ground, grasping the rise and fall of hundreds of thousands of acres of land given the condition he might have been forgiven for catching up on some long overdue correspondence. Without bothering to wait for the assistance that he was arranging, he donned his hat and coat, retrieved his horse and rode into the rain. The book, grand avenue, the discussion is sometimes called a biography but it has three subjects. First, the man was a highly unlikely colossus of city planning around the world. Second, an idea called the federal city, and iconographic possession of streets, avenues and ideals of america, with the third subject of the book, a single drawing, the Meeting Point<\/a> of the first subjects that has come to be known as the 1791 manuscript plan of washington, d. C. What you see behind me here is the rendition of that plan. It is not an image of the plan itself, which you will hear in the last bit of my talk. Still, this is the library of congress. The plan as it exists now, if i were to put that on the screen here, it is a big, brown smudge with a slightly darker brown smudge in the middle of it. It is impossible to read with the eye. You can catch bits and pieces of it. It took microscopes and labors lasers to pull this out of it. It took an enormous amount of excavation. When he finished the plan, when he created this document, it did not have all this wonderful cbs shading, it was a kind of boring offwhite with a lot of black lines and a few splotches in the middle of watercolor. Sort of lightly fated watercolor. This is an image done by don hawkins who is going to speak your next month. He spent a good part of his life choosing to reclaim that only this plan, but in an article that i wrote for that i wrote for the post magazine several years ago, he outlined the new typography of this. The district as it existed in 1791, this is a kind of halfway point. It evokes the age of the plan and the fragility of the plan as well as the beauty of the plan but it also makes clear the lines of the plan and a way that if we tried to get the actual existing plan today we would not be able to do it. This is what i wanted to talk about today. This drawing, the man who created it, there are two essential facts about this drawing that go handinhand. One, it was created in five months","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801704.us.archive.org\/20\/items\/CSPAN3_20150322_154500_History_of_the_Freedmans_Bank\/CSPAN3_20150322_154500_History_of_the_Freedmans_Bank.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20150322_154500_History_of_the_Freedmans_Bank_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240621T12:35:10+00:00"}