There is about 1200 letters between them. That is a lot. And if you think about it, will we ever know as much about modernday american political leaders as we know about those people in the late 18th century . It seems weird. I think we want no less. Unless all the emails between hillary and bill find our way not get a raise, if you will , if you will. Sed [laughter] and it is distinctive in its candor and intimacy. Dolly and James Madison had a great relationship, they are together all the time. And because of the paradox of proximity, because abigail and john are apart, we know the most about them when they are apart. And they leave a record that is really unprecedented. I have made the case and will repeated here that this is the most fully revealed marriage and partnership between prominent american figures in all of American History. And we can contest that and come up with other examples, but i still would defend that just for the purposes of argument and our discussion today. Ok, here is where we are going. We are going to look at the adams and their careers in 17651775. All of you have seen this and perhaps taught it, remember it is in every womens anthology in history. And we have a few new things to say about it. We would take a very intense look at the summer of 1776, lots of things are happening at the same time. Both politically and they are writing the declaration the british fleet is arriving on long island with soldiers to destroy the Continental Army. And abigail and john have all the kids, all four of them, in boston up for inoculation. So you have this personal and this public story going on at the same time. And we are going to take a look at what adams mightve said if he wrote the declaration. A brief review of what we talked about last time. We do this at the beginning of every class. It will be brief, but if you want to Say Something, correct me, or insert your sense of what we agreed on last time, this is the opportunity to do so. Ok . We are flying in a very High Altitude over the landscape of the late 18th century in america. And we were noticing certain features, one of which is this thing called the American Revolution. Which is going to happen at that time. It is happening. We notice that the term revolution is trickier than it first seems. Because winning a war for colonial independence is not itself inherently a revolutionary act. And so there might be a different term we could use to get at this, and the term we were playing with his american founding. Rather than American Revolution. The textbooks you use will all say revolution. The American Revolution does not fit the classic european definition of revolution, we said. It is not a class conflict, one class does not replace the other. Not like the russian or french revolutions. The chinese revolution. But it is possible to argue it is revolution, i think it is, and it is a revolution because of what it creates at the end. The largest republic, nationsize republic, in World History that then becomes the liberal model for the nationstate in the 19th and 20th century. That is a big deal. Ok . A big deal. We noticed that the war in order to have a successful secession from the British Empire, and that term conjures up the fact that the confederacy in 1861 is going to say they are merely doing what the american colonists did in rebelling against the British Empire when they rebelled against the union and lincoln, lincoln equals george iii. That from a purely conventional perspective, there is no way they could defeat the british army and navy. I know we have great pride in our military and Continental Army, all of that stuff. But that this was a nowin situation, if they fought the war in conventional terms. So that on the one side you can make the case that it is a miracle. And actually washington said this at the end. He called a standing miracle that we won the war. He said with all of these ragtag groups, all amateurs he always called it a standing miracle. What does a sitting miracle look like . A lying down miracle . [laughter] that is true. But i did not say this last time, it was implicit. I think our own experience in vietnam and more recently in iraq has made us more aware of then we were of the intractable problems the british faced in winning this war. They are fighting what we now call a counterinsurgency operation, with a force at any given time of 50,000 or 60,000 troops spread out. In order to win this war, they need 500,000 troops and they needed to be able to occupy any country they conquered permanently. That was politically and economically impossible for them to do. So once washington figured out how to fight the war, irony of ironies, the way to fight is not to try to win, the way to fight it is to make sure you do not lose. Right . Preserve the Continental Army intact as much as possible, do not fight battles unless you have a tactical advantage, etc. They won. Tada not only did they win, but at the beginning of the conflict, we go back to this year nobody says the americans are fighting in order to acquire an empire in north america. Nobody says that is our goal. It is all constitutional arguments to be free of the tyrannical regime of parliament in the british ministry. But at the end of the war, almost by accident, whoopsie, we get the land between the alleghenies and the appellations and the mississippi. And that creates an interesting problem, an interesting problem the british had before the war. You can see this as a continuation of the french and indian war. The french and indian war of 17541753, the brits and the french are fighting for european control of the american interior. By the way, there were these other people called native americans have been there for 600 years. There are about 2000 of them. They are in the french and indian war, they control the balance of force. Whoever gets the native americans is going to win. And the americans are in there just as allies. And so, the American Revolution becomes the next chapter in that same story. It is no a fight between the brits and the americans for who controls this area. And we win. The native americans site mostly with the brits. They think the brits are going to win, because as anyone would have thought, if the brits can win against france, the concert they win against these amateurish americans. We did not talk about this. Once that happens, a native american presents east of the mississippi is probably doomed. It is a tragedy. Here is the final point in making. The biggest item in the landscape is a huge crater. And it is called slavery. And we said that any historian, or any writer of essay questions for the advanced placement exam, who fails to make slavery a central topic is doing a disservice to the American History. It is there. It is the ghost at the banquet, the elephant in the room whatever you want to call it. That said, any historian who brings his or her political agenda in the 21st century and uses that as the exclusive window through which to view that problem is also doing American History a disservice. That we have to to first come to grips with the way in which it was seen in the way it was perceived by the american leaders at that time. Also by the africanamericans trapped within it, if we possibly can. And we left it at the end, this is a tragedy. And the question we have to discuss, the question we will not discuss here, but the one that u. S. Teachers i think should raise with your students is, what kind of tragedy was it . A shakespearean tragedy, meaning that human agency had a hand in it and we could have done it differently. They could have been solved. Or is it a greek tragedy, my little latin background from the jesuits. Tis the will of the gods. It is embedded, intractable, no way to solve it. We do know beyond any shadow of a doubt that if it had been faced squarely and put on the agenda in the constitutional convention, the constitution would have never been passed. But are there other ways it could have been removed . We will talk about that and subsequent classes, but concerning that on the record now, we call attention to slaverys significance. True to the historical situation in the late 18th century. Interestingly, you get to the antebellum, you get southerners saying it is a positive good. We are taking care of those people, better than they would be if they were back in africa. They say that. Calhoun says that. Interestingly, nobody says that in the late 18th century. There are people that wanted to be removed. Franklin says that. Adams says it from afar in london. And other people like slaveowners, such as jefferson and pinckney, it is a necessary evil. We cannot do without it. Our economy cannot work without it. But nobody makes a moral case for slavery in the late 18th century. They know it is wrong. They all know that slavery violates the values on which the American Revolution was based. There is no disagreement about that. Ok . So anyone that claims and the south would say it is not, but it is and the Confederate Flag thing . We understand there have southerners live grownup that understand it is a patriotic thing, but go back and read. When South Carolina secedes, they tell you why. It is slavery. The civil war is about slavery. And anybody who argues different way from that is a fool. Ok. When i was in the army, are there any questions . That meant, do not ask any questions [laughter] have i said anything you would to comment on . Yes, david . Hold on, david. You are the guinea pig, it is going to happen 100 times. David i want to go back to revolutionary founding. You got me thinking about what terms we are going to use. Last night, i came up with a thought joseph my goal is to set off explosions in your consciousness. No nuclear weapons. David just grenades right now. The founding was the war. The actual war. They got us away from great britain, the revolution occurred when those four guys came up with the idea to create a constitution. And then got ratified, it changed the entire thinking of the spirit of 76. Joseph adams is not in us. David i know. There is a book about this. It is that new book. [laughter] i dont want to promo the book, but that is interesting. It is possible, counterintuitive, to what i would think. But that makes it probably a good idea. Mainly, i would say, huh, the founding is the rescue of the American Revolution. Joseph by establishing a nationstate. That is the founding. You are right, too. That is the more revolutionary act. I think that you are raising the question of terminology that has larger intellectual significance that is worth talking about. And, you know, you have to deal you serve on any committees, is interesting. Put this on the ap exam. Because there is no right answer to that. But anybody that can talk intelligently about that, they know a lot about American History. David im more comfortable looking at changes of thought being revolutionary, as opposed to wars. Joseph like this guy from the new york times, he wants me to write a piece on the eu and the united states. But, you know, the greek crisis is really the eu crisis. It has not been exposed, there really is no such thing as the eu. But i think that what americans do in the constitutional convention, even more the 1790s, is create a national union. The framework for it, even before there is any nationals. Some people now say there is no such thing as a european union, there is no such thing as europe. The American Experience is irrelevant. It is relevant because there is no such thing as the American People in 1787. Even though historians have said, we the people. The first lines of the constitution, we are going into stuff i have not talked about. Marsh is someone worthy of writing about. You know, he is a peg leg guy. The is the same size as washington. He is six foot three inches. Washington was measured in a casket. When they get ahead of jefferson for statue, the came over to mount vernon and did all the studies. But then he went back to paris and did not have the torso. Morris was in paris. He was the american minister to paris. The torso to jeffersons statue in front of the richmond state house is governor morris body. Without the peg leg. He is a real ladies man. Even though we had a peg leg. You figure that out. There is this episode where he leaps out of a window of this married woman to escape the arriving husband. And he breaks a limb. And he says we all wish it was a certain limb he had broken. That is not when he gets the leg, that is when he was a kid. Anyway, in the august of 1787, they send the draft of the constitution to the committee on style. If you can ever get on that committee, get on that one. That is the one you want on. And because madison and hamilton are on it, the assign the whole thing to this guy. Is a good writer, he tells good jokes. The draft he begins with says, get this, we the people of maine, new hampshire, connecticut, rhode island, down the coast. We the people of each of the states. He changes it. How does he do it . He just does it. And the whole thing going on in the constitutional convention, it is what is federal and what is state. Where the line is drawn . And he singlehandedly give the constitution a National Scene by beginning we the people. In virginia, Patrick Henry said if they only said we the people of the state, i would not object. But that is not what they said. They said we the people of the united states. And there is no such thing. Ok . They are virginians, new englanders. This is what we call a tangent. [laughter] or a sidebar. Let me ask we have to move on to the theme for today. Im going to ask, this is a way to get into this i hope, how many of you actually write letters anymore . Ok, me, too. Is this experience familiar to you . Do you agree or disagree . When i get a letter in the mail and it is hand written, and even better if its written with a fountain pen, i am really thrilled. I say, great somebody has sat there and done this. That persons thought process was deliberate product at the time to do this. Most of the people that i know that are younger than me, including all my kids, they are insulted if they get such a letter. Why insulted . I do not know. It is like this is anachronistic. It is like we do not do that. We do not write cursive. You cannot read it. Joseph right. How many of you, as teachers, of the students you teach, how many write letters . A lot . Or few . Letter writing is no longer an art am in the way that it was back in their day. Ok, alright. What is the difference between a letter and a tweet . Or an email . 140 characters. Joseph in terms of what it tells us about the writer and what it conveys as a document in its meaning to the reader . What are you looking for in a letter versus an email . Chris . Hold on, chris. You go. Chris you can delete, you can look at it and say i want to change that. Joseph you can cross things out. The deliver see the original draft of the declaration . Chris i guess with a letter, it is more deliberate. And an email, when i write an email, im try to respond quickly. I have like five emails. I expect there will be a backandforth, not like this is over the next five days. This will suffice. Joseph so the thought process of doing an email matches with the thought process of the person receiving it. This is a you do not expect a long Attention Span. You want to convey information quickly. Chris if i do right along email, you bold their name. Make sure they read it. Joseph youre not as raising your hand . Who is that . Kelly, chicago. They have to let you talk. Kelly when you are talking about tweets or emails, i feel like they are instantaneous and kind of kneejerk not really thoughtful. In some senses, people can really hide behind them. As teachers, professionals who get emails, maybe they would not say that to your face. But with a letter, you really have to be conscious of what you are saying and you have to really want to say it. And generally, you are sending it to one person. Joseph you are opening up a pandoras box. You know, youre talking to the most technologically incompetent person in the world. We are not humble about that. Do you think, and maybe matthew this is what you were going to ask him a that we are going through a cognitive revolution . Based on the means of duplication that most people now use, that psychologically and cognitively, in makes us much more, much more quick, but our Attention Span is much shorter . Kelly yeah. Joseph you cannot ask what you would 100 years ago. Even if it was good for them. Kelly i feel that people are very sort of hidden behind technology with their writing and thoughts. They do not have a lot of accountability for what they say in something that is so quick. Joseph they do not expected to read it carefully. Kelly nor do a lot of people. Is a good or bad thing as far as a revolutionary written word . I feel at the letters come are people going to keep tweets . No, they just toss them out. What is would be left of our record . Who will read what we wrote 200 years from now . Joseph my agenda is just not speculative. It has grounding and what we will talk about today, you have been reading their letters. Let us say the letters of their correspondents, when they first meet each other and the correspondence starts, my thesis argument with you is for you to consider we are talking about people from another place and another time. And if you want to understand them, you have to understand how they think about time and use it, and how distance makes a difference. Not just time, but distance. You know, like, they are going to write a letter. When you write a tweet it is immediate. Boom. You presume that. When they are apart in paris, he is in london, it is six months. And so the way you write a letter and the way you read a letter is different. It holds a different mentality. I like it, part of me still lives in that anachronistic world. But i think as teachers talking about students who are adolescents, you are introducing them to a different universe. Like going to a foreign country. Is that ok back there . You have a sour look on your face. [laughter] maybe this means serious. How about a smile from West Virginia . Mackey, wait for the microphone. Mackey