Transcripts For CSPAN2 In Depth Joanne Freeman 20240714

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 30 people try to get into the course and a lot of those statements about interest in one way or another. I really didnt like the musical and inherent because i im here because i want to learn more about the time as a teacher that is excellent. Once a month on book tv we invite an author to talk about his or her body of work. Iais month its yale professor. Alexander hamilton writings. The field of blood to take time to take a question here are the numbers. If you like to dial in and participate in the conversation. If you live in the mountains and pacific time zone. You can also take the comments via social media. E score through the different addresses,. How did you get interested in this time . Probably the bicentennial. It was everywhere. If youre old enough to remember the bicentennial this rtime was everywhere. There was a bicentennial the reporter dispatch i was cutting out all of the newspaper articles. Also the musical 1776. I think all of that came together to make that time i think in some ways it was real. It was were real people. I didnt seem like a boring bunch of statutes it seemed like people on the ground trying to figure things out which grabbed me i started reading biographies and actually think i startedal and just went. I stopped. He was strange in comparison to the other people i had been reading about not a lot of people had written about him. He have this weird beginning of his life he was born relatively poor and illegitimate and the credit caribbean. Both of those things were intriguing to me. I know that as a young person he wanted to accomplish great things i think on some level, i probably identified with seeing a young person wanting to go on. I read the biography of hamilton i wish i could reconstruct what i didnt like about it. Somehow i did. I went to the library and asked the library what the writer have read that gave him the right to say what he said in the book. And she pointed me to the 27 volumes of the hamilton papers and i pulled out a volume and i looked at them. To me that was the real stuff. That was the history. That was someone putting on paper what they were thinking. To me that was the most exciting thing ever. I just want to read the stuff. I read my way through. I did that for years and years and i did not know it never occurred to me to be a professor. I didnt know there was a profession called historian. I have no outcome in mind it was just the thing i liked to do. It was like awa decades later that i suddenly realized i have kind of an interesting database in my head. In a wayay that was not the goal. When you put together writings how did you compile that and what did you compile with it. It was when i was a grad student actually. And i was a ta. For a course that my graduate advisor had. There was a library of america wonderful volume l and there was no hamilton equivalent. This is only get to be believable because of what i just said. Pulled together a reader at kinkos and we photocopied all the letters and put them together and i think there was a little glossary of names to go along with the library of america volumeem had. We used in the course it was a huge massive book that worked wonderfully. It was made to go along with the jefferson volume years later, it occurred to me that i have already edited what couldve been a library of america addition of hamiltons writings at that point i went to the library of america and saidid you know what i think, i created a volume which i would like to do with these guys. It is a wonderful Nonprofit Organization that is just about putting american writings in letters in print and keeping it in print forever. It is near and dear to my heart because the actual stuff was history. They created this volume based on what i pulled together. It is not necessarily greatest hits of hamilton. Report on manufacturers. But it also includes a lot of personal letters that i selected some time because they showed us something something about hamilton as a person because they expose something about politics. It was really meant to be kind of a spectrum of writing that show you about his thinking a person iis as include memos in there things that he never intended anybody to see because sometimes thats the most revealing kind of stuff. The favorite one i like to he wrote up a few days may be a week within the Constitutional Convention very loyal thinkers. He sits down, and he basically on a piece of paper says what do i think ise can happen next. He said while, the constitution is going to be ratified probably in washington. Washington will be chosen present. As they trust washington they will trust the people appointed to office. That would be good to maybe had people appointed to the government. However, maybe he wont be made president somehow maybe that wont happen. N. Maybe other countries will sleep in sweep it and try to take over. Maybe there will be a separate little sections. He dropped the image of chaos. De the government collapses. Fascinating to read but the kicker of this and this is the guy who have been pushing for this convention forever has it its been created and at the end of the memo he said having just created. Thats not likely whats can happen. That is fascinating. It is probably not can work. S at second a function to function the way it functions. It wont be willing in his mind for it to work while. And its probably all get a collapse. That is great to teach with. Here is a guy whos at the federal conventionps. I dont think it well. Its just not what you expect of that moment and certainly not what you would expect from the white house. Joanne before we get into calls you are at the library studying hamilton were your parents history buffs. My grandfather wasnt but i was but i dont think i knew that. He was a civil war buff and i know he have these books that he used to read but i didnt really know anybody who was really interested in this. I kind of thought it was a weird thing to do i never talk to anybody about iti i have the books under my bed becausese i was kind of embarrassed. Sometimes my dad would make fun of me for reading these books. Other people have comic books bed but ier their have volumes of the hamilton papers. I was just often weird freeman land doing whatever i wanted to do. What did your folks do. I was mostly raised in westchester county. My mom initially was a Kindergarten Teacher and went on to do some work in interior design. My dad was a Market Researcher. And then went on to do Market Research in the movie industry for person applying to the Market Research techniques to film. I grew up sitting walking and watching focus groups. Its interesting. I grew up watching research sorting through this Creative Process thats come upp with this. He might not had been history minded but he was research minded. Mi lets hear from our callers. Hi david. Thank you. I wanted to say to professor freedom i just briefly wanted to saybr you would be the greatest teacher. Ive seen you on cspan many and what i love about is you get the excitement and the love and the interest going and i wish all teachers high school, college have at the same enthusiasm and thrill to give their students as you do. Thats very nice of you to say. I first heard about it when i saw the s professor freeman on another show and just the idea of it i have friends that are on the conservative side. I belong to History Group with them. G g there is this book that talks about the Early Congress and all of these politicians are trying to kill each other. They thought this was the most wonderful idea. Twomac let me quickly ask my question. Hamilton is a founding father. The first for presence of this country were Founding Fathers. He knows that the rule is because he is foreignborn he can be president did you think that he wouldve liked to be president and what did power really mean to him thank you very much. Twopart answer. First of all there actually was an exemption clause in the constitution that if you were an american citizen at the time that the constitution was ratified you actually were able to do that. He actually wasnt exempt. He couldve been elected president but the second half of my answer ise i dont think he assumes that. He knew very well that he was not very popular. He was very blunt and stepping forward and saying i will be problematic. A washington considers sending him to england him of ten steps forwardrd and says dont do that. Im not popular. That will create problems for you. I dont think he would assume to be president ever. As a matter of fact i will go beyond that and say he kind of liked the idea that he was unpopular because in his mind it admits he was being very virtuous and promoting ideaser not because they would get popular appeal but because he thought they were the right things to promote. On as it seems for someone who understood power in empowering this new National Government i dont think he wanted that. Hi rachelle. Thank you for taking my call a quick comment i am so pleased to hear your kudos to the library. I had two quick questions you referred to the fact that the Republican Party and so forth were not the same as they are today in todays republicans constantly refer to them as the party themselves of lincolnpas is accurate and as accurate in number two i went to a presentation at the Historical Society about a year ago i professor professor i dont remember it was named out in in oklahoma is writing a book that hamilton was jewish is there any credibility to this . The first question the Republican Party. The problem with drying that kind of straightline is that if you look, there are wonderful 20th century clinical historians had done the track work, if you look at what they represent and what they stand for they changed dramatically over time you can track the use of aan word like republican but you cant consistently say what the party stood for in 1850 or 60 is what a party stands for now. Politicians of all kinds on all sides have all kinds of reasons to want w to draw those kind of Straight Lines to the past. I think you kind of cringe when it happens. Historically speaking that usually doesnt usually reflect a reality. As far as the book that is gonna be coming out im think its from oxford university. I heard about it i cant judge the credibility of it or not. I know that they have done a lot of research im really intrigued to see it. I dont think you can rule anything out until you see the evidence. And really gotten a sense of what leads to the conclusion. Im i can sayin its not possible. There are not a lot of records from his use. You have to do to do some Research Like this person did. To really find things out about his youth because of that there are a lot of blank spaces. And people often likece to project certain things. All kinds of stories and other Creative Things that people have applied to hamilton some of them might be true but the fact of the matter is you really need to get to the staff stuff of evidence. On the island of nevis who was his mother. His mother, her parents were french and they have done research on this at some point so this is like the ultimate freeman vacation that i know. I will plant myself on nevis for a month. It was like the perfect vacation. In the afternoon hours i would lie on the beach. His mother was there. His fatherhi was the fourth son of a scotsman of endo bullish the first son inherits everything. He kind of went out into the world. And i think he thought he would get rich quick in the caribbean. Supposedly his parents did not marry. And a certain point they move to the island of st. Croix. His father leaves the family at some point and does not come back. They are not particularly well off. He is pretty much not well off. And doesnt have much money. Or connections. S nooe and gets off the island and ultimately ends up in north america and beams into what becomes the American Revolution because he so clearly if did and a great writer. People put together a Charitable Fund to put him to north america so he can get ann education. Thats how he ends up in new york first in new jersey than in new york. How would you describe his relationship with George Washington. On may be the very short weight wait would be conflicted. That is a crucial relationship for him. In a very important way no one knows during the revolution that George Washington is can end upio being the president and how important he is. But by linking with him at the early pointt he puts himself in the close relationship the nations first man as many people called him at the time. He really puts himself in a sphere that allows him to have the kind of influence certainly that he wanted to have, but it is conflicted because hes not really good with Authority Figures and he kind of chased a little bit during the revolution, you know, washington makes it clear that hamilton is kind of a favorite. He doesnt want to be anybodys favorite. He wanted to be promoted or appreciated for his merits and he doesnt like the fact that people see him as a favorite. During the war he and washington have kind of a spat, and its at a point where they are both clearly fatigued. He had been working with washington, he was washingtons aide, spent a lot of time at the desk writing things. They are listening to washington tell him what to write or writing things and correcting them after washington looked at them. At the late point in the war, they were tired, and hamilton is working with washington, leaves his side, runs down a staircase to deliver a letter, gets stopped at the foot of the stairway. Lafayette apparently had a way of grabbing ahold of your lapels and talking with you in a very engaged manner. He does that with hamilton for a few minutes. He looks up, and at the top of the stairway is washington glaring down and he said something along the lines, colonel hamilton you have kept me waiting these ten minutes. You treat me with disrespect, sir. Hamilton who at this point is really tired of being an aide, would much rather be on the battlefield, says im not aware of, that sir but if you believe that, then we part and storms off and basically surrenders his position. Washington sends someone out to apologize to his aide. And hamilton refuses to take that apology, waits until he can be replaced, and leaves. And then writes this wonderful two letters, writes one letter to his fatherinlaw in which he says Something Like i need to tell you what happened, but i need to explain to you why it happened and please understand that, you know, it doesnt dont think badly of me as you might. And then he writes a much shorter letter to his friend a fellow aide and says something again, this is pretty close to being a direct quote, the great man and i have come to an open rupture. This is basically not the first time hes behaved this way, but it is going to be the last time im going to take it. He clearly sees himself as put upon and he storms off. That kind of tells you a lot about that relationship and hamiltons kind of almost i think resentment that he needed him so much in that way, and the fact hes impulsive, doesnt necessarily contain himself in ways that would have been useful a lot of times and washington is very patient with hamilton and comes back again and again and assort of allows him back into his circle. Next call from margaret in fayetteville, arkansas. Please go ahead. Caller hello, and thank you. I have a comment and a question. My understanding is that James Somerset, an american slave working for his american master in england sued for his freedom in 1772 and won his case, freeing himself and about 15,000 other slaves in england. The case was widely reported and followed in the american colonies, and there was widespread concern among the masters that they might soon lose their so called property, their slaves on which their wealth was based. A very good book on this subject is slave nation by two professors at rutgers, so i believe that the James Somerset case in england in 1772 was one of the real causes of the American Revolution, mostly it is not acknowledged as such, but my question then is, what are your thoughts on this and thank you very much. Thank you, maam thank you. Certainly what youre touching on there is a point that is true throughout this period and beyond, and that is well, several points. Number one, that in england there was some antislavery activity going on at a stronger pitch initially than some of what was going on at the time the colonies and in the early ni United States. That had an impact of what was going on in the colonies in the United States. The institution of slavery was a longstanding kind of third rail particularly if you were a southerner. It affected your political decisions. It affected your understanding of what kind of power you had and how you needed or wanted to maintain it. Certainly you can say that tin institution of slavery that the institution of slavery in and of itself even before the constitution but throughout colonial and early america plays a major major role in pretty much shaping everything. It was something as you know as you put it people who owned property of that kind put that front and foremost in what they considered they needed to be protecting, and institutions of government are about, among other things, property rights. So certainly thats part of the mix of things thats constantly front and center in American History, throughout its existence. Hasnt always been that way, in the way people tell that story. And some of what were seeing in recent years, recent decades, and particularly recent years is people really being aggressive about restoring that vital central part of the story to how we understand who we are as a nation. Next call for you comes from tom in chicago. Go ahead, tom. Caller hi, professor freeman. Thank you very very much. So several years ago, when the movie lincoln came out. Like a lot of people, i became fascinated with Thaddeus Stevens, Tommy Lee Jones played him brilliantly in the movie and seemed like a very interesting character and probably an admirable one as well. What im wondering is the violence on the floor of congress that you write about in your latest book, given how easily provoked so many of these other congressmen were, especially the ones in the other party, and given how provocative stevens was in a kind of brutally rhetorical way, did anyone ever pull a knife on him . Was he challenged to a duel . Did anyone ever cane him . Any of that . Was he on the receiving end of any of this violence . Thats a really interesting question, and Thaddeus Stevens, fervent antislavery politician and a real character with a really dry kind of wit. Hes really fun to study. Im not aware of someone ever explicitly caning him, but what was particularly wonderful about stevens is this is not going to be surprising given everything you just said he was really effective at speaking up and smacking at any southerner who made any gesture in that direction. For example, after lets see right in the later years of the civil war, when southerners are trying to find their way back into the union, louisiana, Thaddeus Stevens, among others, when a southerner threatens violence stands up and says Something Like, you know, not a lot of you were here necessarily back in the 1850s. I was. I remember what it was like back then. Not really like a lot of violence back then. Do you remember these guys . Any of you folks remember these guys . I remember these guys. Do we really want to let them back in . I dont know. What do you think . Hes the person that would step forward and say that. You are right. I think theres one moment in which someone threatens him, and i think afterwards he referred to it as a momentary breeze. He said there was a momentary breeze and everyone laughed because it wasnt a momentary breeze, it was someone kind of threatening him. He isnt at the receiving end, but hes someone who is never afraid to speak his mind in the midst of it. Theres a moment when theres discussion of or theres voting on what i believe ultimately becomes the fugitive slave act, a lot of congressmen go and basically hide in the library, the Congressional Library so they dont have to vote on the issue, and when the voting is done, stevens says out loud because it is in the congressional record, you can send someone to the library now and tell everyone to come back, its safe, we are done with that vote. Hes that guy, the guy that speaks up, but as far as i know, not physically attacked. Lets go to may 22nd, i believe it was, 1856, a name thats relatively lost to history and it wasnt until i reread field of blood Preston Brooks. Right, the caning of charles sumner. It took me a long time to write the field of blood, ultimately took 17 years as old as my students. When i said to people im writing a book about physical violence in the u. S. Congress, most people even if they didnt know names would Say Something along the lines of oh there was that guy. Yes, charles sumner, people have a sense that there was at least one violent incident in congress. Charles sumner is the massachusetts abolitionist senator who is caned to the ground sitting on his desk at the senate by Preston Brooks, of South Carolina, a congressman, hes in the house comes across to the senate. Sumner had stood up and made a very aggressive antislavery speech and in it he had insulted according to brooks South Carolina and a kinsman of brooks, so brooks comes into the senate and basically says to sumner, who was seated at his desk, you have insuggest sulted you have insulted my part of the union, my state, my kinsman and threatens to punish him for it. He violently canes him. The desks in the senate were bolted to the ground so sumner in a sense is trapped, seated at that desk. Ultimately in his anxiety to get away from the caning, wrenches the desk from the ground, but brooks continues caning him until his cane breaks. Now, whats interesting, there are a number of interesting things about the caning. One of them is that although there was a lot of violence in congress, which i write about in this book, deliberate attacks like that are supposed to take place in the street. I mean, violence erupts all the time, particularly in the house, but if you are going to stage an attack, in that way, its supposed to happen in the street, and brooks for two days tries to catch sumner outside on the capitol grounds, because thats the proper way to beat a congressman. Why . Well, you can see why because of what happens when he confronts him in the Senate Chamber. A southerner confronting a northerner, an abolitionist in the Senate Chamber and beating him to the ground, the becomes the south beating the north into a submission in a deeply symbolic kind of way that, you know, has national repercussions, in a way that there would have been repercussions if it happened outside, but the symbolism of that, the power of that happening in the senate takes it off the chart. There was somebody else, a cohort of brooks protecting or making sure people didnt come to sumners help; correct . Correct. Another South Carolina senator was there keeping anyone trying to interfere away. The fact of the matter is people were yelling dont kill him, dont kill him, but heres the interesting may be horrifying but interesting thing about some of the congressional violence. It is kind of counterintuitive. But there was a lot of violence, throughout this period, 1830s, 40s, 50s, fighting was kind of a given if it seemed fair. And by that i mean, there were rules of fighting, right . So if you were going to insult someone, you were only supposed to insult someone if he was present so he could defend himself. If you were going to attack someone, you were only supposed to attack if you were attacking an unarmed man, you yourself were supposed to be unarmed. Fairness was considered to be very important. An example of that, late 1850s, a letter from a congressman, which hes writing i think to his wife and he looks up and sees a menacing looking stranger standing in front of one of his colleagues with his fists clenched and hes writing in this letter, that doesnt look good. I think theres going to be a fight, but he kind of looks at the stranger and looks at his colleague and his colleague is a bigger man, it will probably be fine. Whatever happens it will be fine. When he thinks he spots a weapon, he thinks the stranger is holding a weapon, he stands up and immediately positions himself behind that stranger in case he pulls the weapon. So he lets the fight happen, but if its fair, he lets it happen. If that stranger reached for a weapon, he would have stopped it. Some of whats happening in the case of brooks, in some areas, certainly that seemed like an unfair fight in many ways. In the investigation of that that happens afterwards, theres a huge not surprisingly congressional report about it, brooks is asked did you at least warn sumner that you were going to do this . That would have made it fair; right . And when brooks clearly did not warn sumner, hes reprimanded for not warning him by congress. Right . Congress says what you did was bad but also you should have warned him which tells me something about the culture of congress at that moment, that somehow that would have made it better. That would have redeemed it somehow. Was Preston Brooks reelected . Preston brooks was celebrated in the south. He was sent celebratory canes. Hes reelected, by northerne northerners he somehow gets a Throat Infection and suffocates and dies very suddenly. Whats interesting about the fighters i wrote about in my book, most of the aggressive fighters for much of the period i write about are southerners. People in the period when you looked at an Incoming Congress, they tended to try to break their ranks down into and these are their words fighting men and noncombatant. Who are the fighting men in the Incoming Congress and who are noncombatants. Fighting men tended to get reelected because they were doing one henry wise of virginia whos a fighting man for sure, at one point hes reprimanded. Shame on you for what you do, like youve caused 12 fights already this session. You should be sent home. And he says do it. You know what . Theyre going to reelect me and put me right back here because im here to do this. They elect me to do that. Im fighting for their rights. Hes right. To some degree, for a period of time, people who fight in that way, southerners who were willing to fight in that way, and i would say that maybe 10 of a given house would have been considered fighting men, theyre put there because the assumption is they will use that edge to fight to protect their interests including the institution of slavery. Next call for Joanne Freeman is robert in atlanta. Caller professor freeman, youre delightful. Thank you. My question was about the conflicted relationship between hamilton and washington. And you pretty much answered everything, so if i may, ill ask something else. What do you think were the prospects of hamilton, had the duel not occurred and had he been i just cast adrift, in new york, as an attorney, would he just have lived out his life that way . Or would he have tried to get back on to the National Stage . Thats a really good question. And we have a little bit of evidence about what he was thinking. First off, by the time the duel happened, by 1804, hamiltons political career is not doing really well. Even without the duel, he wrote a number of pamphlets that he thought were very logical, but did not do him any favors. First, he defends himself against charges of misusing treasury funds by consenting to an adulterous affair, what we now called the reynolds pamphlet, that didnt do his reputation a lot of favors. Then he writes a pamphlet attacking his own president ial candidate john adams in the election of 1800, that really didnt do him favors. His supporters at that point are backing away from him as what they call an indiscrete politician, that he did not have discretion. He does not have control over himself, and that hes a danger, liability. So he already has his career is suffering. The federalists, his party, as a whole are now fading away. The nation is moving in a more democratic direction than the federalists would have preferred, so on that level too, he has much less power. So in one way or another, i dont think he was going to gain political power again. So the question is then if the duel hadnt happened, what would he have done . And he left behind one or two little clues about that. I think he might have become kind of a political commentator. He clearly was pondering another collection of essays along the lines of the federalist which he was the, you know, initiator of the federalist essays that he wrote with Madison James madison and john jay. He was thinking about doing that again, apparently he had approached one friend and colleague and had said would you be willing to write Something Like that . I think he would have been commenting on american government. I think he saw someone who was going to stand by might have been critical, but might have been a commentator of that ilk. That said, the final statement he wrote before the duel in which he explains he feels compelled to fight the duel. The last paragraph of that is fascinating. He says something along the lines of its addressed to posterity, if he dies in the duel, some of you may be wondering why i ended up fighting this duel. I dont support duelling. I should have just not agreed to fight this. But heres the thing, at some point in our future, there will be in the case of crises in our public affairs, which seem likely to happen, he wants to be able to step forward during those crises and be useful, and to be useful, i think he felt he needed to protect and redeem reputation so he could be a public figure if needed again. I think he thought this is along the lines of the memo i mentioned back a while ago, about things not ultimately working and maybe collapsing, i think he pretty consistently thought the american experiment may not last. I think if it didnt, i think he saw himself as someone who would literally and figuratively sort of ride into the mess, ride into the problem and in some way or another save the day. He never comes out and says i think there would be warfare. I think if you would have asked him, he would have said might there be conflict of a warlike nature between americans if that crisis to come . He might have said yes. And in this case, i think he wanted to be someone who would be prepared to fight, and in some ways i think he met that literally fight as a soldier. Part of why he fought that duel was to protect and redeem his reputation for that period, if that might come. Joanne freeman, i read the federalist papers like a dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court. Is that the right way to do it . Heres the thing, people tend to use the federalist as an objective commentary, right, on the constitution. And the fact of the matter is, and this is an exaggeration, but its what i tell my students to kind of encourage them to think this way, it is kind of a commercial advertisement, for the constitution. The purpose of the federalist essays was heres why you should like them. Basically the idea behind it was hamilton and madison and jay thinking about all the ways in which americans were going to distrust this. What might they not like about it . What might be bad about it . They stepped forward and said youre kind of scared of this, lets explain why this isnt such a bad thing, and not only that, if we dont do this, this might happen and thats worse. So it really isnt intended to be objective. It certainly is intended to look that way, as though it is an objective statement, about what the constitution is, but it is a document with a purpose. It is a series of documents with a purpose. It is a series of newspaper essays written to defend and promote this new constitution so that people will trust it and ideally the states will ratify it into existence. Next call comes from jane in california. Please go ahead. Caller thank you professor freeman for being there. Im in the midst of a dilemma. Im almost finished with the biography of John Marshall called without precedent. And in the book he goes into great detail on how terrible devious jefferson was and almost close to treason. Im having great difficulty trying to come to a peace with this because he did write the beautiful declaration of independence and other papers, but his behavior, his lack of integrity, and all the terrible things he did is just its overwhelming me. How do you deal with this . Wow, thats a good question. Theres a tendency, particularly when looking at this time period to take sides. Right . And particularly when you are looking at hamilton and jefferson and nowadays given that hamilton is getting all of this sort of promotion, you know, it is interesting. When you look over the long haul, typically when hamiltons reputation is doing well, jeffersons isnt. Theres kind of a seesaw of reputations and i think thats true beyond them. I would say when you read a book that appears to be very onesided in that way, the best thing to do is to go out and read another book that comes at you in another point of view. Clearly this book has a very strong opinion about marshall, and jefferson and marshall did not see eyetoeye. Jefferson really detested marshall. They had very different political views. I would encourage you to go out and read a biography of jefferson that takes a different point of view. You know, one of the things i do with my students in my class is because its very hard students generally come into a class and maybe in ways they havent understood is taken a side. One of the best things you can do is really read some of the things these people have written. Im a person who loves to read that kind of primary evidence, but if you read a jefferson biography, thats favorable of jefferson and presents you with the evidence to support that, you can then begin to evaluate what you think. You can pit books against each other. I almost this is going to be a broad statement. I almost wouldnt trust a book any book that comes in that onesided without reading another book with a different point of view so that you yourself as a reader can evaluate and decide what you think. So personally, when i deal with jefferson, i dont see good guy hamilton and bad guy jefferson or bad guy hamilton and good guy jefferson, i dont think it is ever that clear. I think the important thing about their existence and others, marshall and others in this period is that no one was absolutely right and most people were not absolutely wrong, and the fact of the matter is it is the banging up of different ideas against each other that ends up leading to something thats functional. So i think thats a more useful way to think about the period. There are aspects of jefferson that im not particularly fond of. There are aspects of hamilton that im not particularly fond of either. Whats interesting is the blend of ideas and what happens because of that blend of ideas and what doesnt happen and the ways in which over time other politicians, public figures and the populists find ways to build on and improve on whats come before. Joanne freeman, were going to go back to your twitter feed. First of all, why do you use 1755 as your my twitter handle. Your twitter handle. Okay, so, we dont absolutely know when hamilton was born. Its either well, for a long time, its been either 1755 or 1757. Theres a piece of paper that suggests hamilton was born in 1755. Hamilton himself appears to have said 1757. His wedding ring and his grave suggests 1757. I went with 1755 because its a document, and, you know, im not strongly invested in 55 or 57, but thats where that comes from. So youre a 1755er, okay. I once had someone a 57er with great disdain youre a 55er. People feel very strong ri about these things. People feel very strongly about these things. I dont have that much personal investment in it this is a tweet from 2018. Im going to throw an idea out to the twitter sphere and see what happens. What if there was a giant history rally, a teach in of sorts with teachers, historians of all kinds getting together to discuss what we can learn from American History to help us in the present . What was the reaction you got to that . That was really interesting. I was very honest and say im throwing this into the twitter sphere. It was an idea that i thought would be useful and potentially have some real power to make people think about history, American History and all of its complexity and not take a glossy look at the past and maybe help us wrestle with the present by looking at the ways in which we wrestled with things in the past. I threw that out there kind of not knowing what would happen. It got a really big response. Sometimes from teachers, sometimes from historians. I got a lot of email on it. I got a lot of organizations and public figures of various sorts contacted me about it. All of them saying yes, lets do this. So this is actually something ive now spoken with a number of colleagues about the best way to move forward. This is actually something im eager to pursue and do. You know, ideally in the late spring, early summer of next year. I think it would be a wonderful thing to have a day when we can talk about, wrestle with, argue about American History and all of its complexity, not celebrate things, not tell a glossy sort of myth view of things, but really talk about the ways in which we have struggled in the past and how we have pushed through those struggles. At this point it is vague. I have just begun conversations with people, but i was so encouraged by the widespread response, that i threw it out into the twitter sphere expecting nothing and now i think wouldnt it be a wonderful thing to have a day and not just in washington and the National Center but in some way or another to create a day when people on a local level just get together to talk about history in some kind of a targeted way. Come back to me in couple months and i will have a better idea. But, you know, im a historian. I engage with scholars. I write scholarly history, but as a historian, i also really fervently want to communicate with the public. I think that historians, scholars should be among the people who are aggressively dealing with offering history to the people. Some of us do. Some of us dont. I think there should be more of us doing it. And this sort of feels to me in that vein, you know what a great thing to take part and talk about American History. We could get you on record that cspan cameras could be at this event. I would love for cspan cameras to be there. [laughter] maryland in leavenworth, kansas. Hi. Caller hi, how are you . I wanted to ask about i didnt come in at the very beginning of this talk, and so perhaps i missed this, but it always seemed to me that hamiltons greatest contribution was his economic ideas, that he was for banks, that he was for the assumption of the states debts. When so many of the other Founding Fathers distrusted banks, jefferson thought that we should all be farmers. And it just seemed to me that paying our debts from the very beginning made such a huge difference in this country and in our later success. Would you talk about that . Sure. Marilyn, what do you do in leavenworth, kansas . Im retired. From . I worked in business insurance. Thank you, maam. Whats your level of interest in history . Well, ive always liked history. Ive always been interested in history. I think that the way things are now, when you go back and read history, its comforting, for one thing to see the long haul . Thank you maam. Thats a good question. Let me grab a slug of water here. I think you are absolutely right, that hamiltons financial plans i spoke earlier about hamilton being a powerful nationalist, being an important part of his legacy. You are absolutely right, that a vital part of his legacy and a fundamental thing he did was to step in as the first secretary of the treasury when there really wasnt a National Structure for finance in any way and to really create that kind of a structure. He was in some ways the perfect person for that job. He was a guy who thought in terms of plans. When i write about him as a person, i often talk about the fact that he was plan minded in his personal life, plan minded as a politician. So he was a perfect person to step in and say okay, ill confront this problem. Revolutionary war debt, individual states with their own sort of systems of dealing or not dealing with debt, and now im going to take on this National Position and try to put things in power. You are right, he has a threepart plan where he wants the National Government to assume state debt, where he wants to create a national bank, where he wants the National Government to promote manufacturing, and those are crucial and particularly for the precise reason that you say, and he says, you know, our debt, paying those debts is the price of liberty. Right . We need to step forward to prove our credit as a nation. And he means credit in the broadest way possible, that to prove that we are a nation with credit, that we have reputation, that we are trustworthy and that we have financial credit, we need to tend to our debts. He says in i think its his first report on public credit. Credit is an entire thing. Its a direct quote. And by that he means it is not just financial. It is who we are as a nation. You are absolutely right. As far as a concrete thing that he did in his public life, stepping forward and creating that threepart plan and then pushing it through and standing behind it at a point where there were many people i mean, i would say that jefferson and the sort of jeffersonians were more complex in wanting people to just be farmers, but still youre absolutely right there was kind of more idea on one side and more urban i would suppose you could say finance oriented ideal on the other side that hamilton is stepping forward and doing that kind of work on a ground level. So, you know, it is tempting to look at people like hamilton and jefferson and think about them as sort of eidologists, ideology, working on a ground level. First of all, hamilton doesnt know much at all about the nations finances. He does things like he creates a sort of questionnaire that he sends out to customs masters around the country asking them to check boxes. Tell me about trade. Tell me about customs. Tell me about so he can collect that information and kind of get a National View of finance in some ways, so hes wonderful in a variety of ways, and his plan is a crucial part of what he does. Nina is responding via twitter to your history idea, your history teachin or get together. History begins before the colonists arrived. If next years historys symposium is held, must include native american histories and crafters. Absolutely. Absolutely. This is the challenge; right . As soon as i say, yes, lets talk about the history, and then question the becomes how broadly, and chronologically . But youre absolutely right, and i think particularly given that the long arc of American History is about fighting for rights and having rights be taken away, in one way or another, tough deal with all sides of that you have to deal with all sides of that equation. You have to deal with people whose rights are being violated and how they are fighting for their rights, that has to be at the center of the story among other things. Again, i literally had two conversations so far about this. So i havent progressed beyond. Its something i want to do and i now i want to figure out how to do it, but im with you. Before we run out of time, weve got to talk about Benjamin Brown french, a name lost to history. Yes, yes. Benjamin brown french. Wherever you are, Benjamin Brown french, i thank you. So when i was writing my most recent book the field of blood a story about physical violence in congress, i ended up finding roughly 70 physically violent incidents in the house and senate, each one could be a chapter, so part of my challenge in writing the book is how do i tell the story and how do i investigate the violence and figure out what it means . Early on in the process i found this minor congressional clerk, his name is Benjamin Brown french, many people used him before when writing about lincoln because he was important in the Lincoln White house, but he left behind an 11 volume diary. He had a newspaper column. He had an extensive correspondence. Hes a poet. Hes amazing. And what is wonderful about what he left behind is that hes in the circle of congress from 1833 until 1870, when he dies, and what he allows me to do, he kind of acts as a guide in my book. You kind of look through his eyes as you are con fronting the violence in congress and you see it through his eyes, and whats wonderful about him is, hes from a small town in new hampshire. Hes made a minor clerk. He arrives in washington, his eyes are this big, wow, im in the nations capitol. Hes writing all of this down, but when he comes to this congress, hes kind of this hey, fellow, you know, everybody likes him. Hes collegial. People of all parties liked him. Hes trying very hard. Hes a northern democrat trying to appease the south and southerners on slavery. He starts out as that guy wanting to do anything it takes to silence the slavery issue and appease southerners, to promote his party and protect the union. By the time of the civil war, in 1860, and he talks about this in his diary, thank heavens he goes out to buy a gun that hes going to carry on his person at all times in case he needs to shoot some southerners who seemed threatening. My thought in writing the book was if i can explain how the person who enters washington in 1833 wanting to appease southerners ends up in 1860 buys a gun and ready to shoot them in the book i call it the emotional dislogic. How emotionally did that make sense to him and many others. Thats the thread to understand the come oflg the civil war. Coming of the civil war. Benjamin brown french allowed me to do. I lived with him for probably like a good decade or at least not more than that. Whats fascinating about him hes kind of the forrest gump of the period i write about, meaning when i was making the footnotes, theres lots and lots of footnotes that basically say over and over again, no, really he was there. If something significant happened, Benjamin Brown french was right there watching it happen. Someone tries to assassinate andrew jackson, french is right there, sees it happen. John quincy adams has a stroke when he goes back to serve in the house after his presidency, not long after french is holding his hand. The gettysburg address, lincoln gives it, who is up on the platform standing beside him, Benjamin Brown french. The assassination, who is at the bedside, first by lincolns side and then standing beside him at the white house after he dies. Benjamin brown french is there for everything. Hes this incredible eyewitness who is very generous in the way he puts his thoughts and feelings down on paper. So he really ends up i think showing to some degree what it felt like to be in that kind of an extreme polarized climate and how americans learned to turn on each other to the degree that they did. Where did you find his papers . So theres a published very abridged edition of his papers that came out from the library of Congress Many years ago. As i said, people who write about lincoln tend to know about him because he adored lincoln. He adored him. He had all these great anecdotes. One of my favorite ones being that someone gave him a pair of socks to give to lincoln that had a Confederate Flag under each foot which he gives to lincoln who finds it funny. I love that anecdote. Hes in a room at the white house and lincoln says out loud it is a room full of people and he says anybody in here know how to spell the word missile . French writes in his diary what kind of a man is that. What kind of a president is willing to admit he doesnt know how to spell that and ask a room full of people with no shame. He just loves lincoln. What people hadnt done as much work with was the 11 volumes of his diary and all his other writings, his newspaper columns, his correspondence, his poetry. He wrote when i was finishing the book, and i got all the way to the epilogue and im trying to figure out, you know, 17 years in, im like i know its in like the last ten pages and i cant figure out how to end it. Who do i do . Come on, french, give me something. Give me something. Im shuffling through papers and im sitting there agonizing and what do i discover . The year before he died, he wrote a poem about what congress meant to him. It was like he smiled down from clerk heaven and said here, have a poem in which i wrote about. He says im sitting in my office. I can see the capitol from my office. The capitol, my home for all these years. So he rm so he was remarkably generous in the way he gave me evidence, and the book wouldnt have been possible without him. Next call for Joanne Freeman is joseph in new york. Hi, joseph. Caller thank you very much, professor freeman for correcting him on the correct pronunciation of my city. [laughter] caller thank you very much. I want to commend you on your earlier comments but also been an immersed openminded historian. My question is this, what words of wisdom would you give to todays congress, whatnot to do and things to do to strengthen this nation of ours right now, which is divided . And im really interested in your comments, and i love the idea that you want to create a whole new cultural thinking. I really appreciate that. And i will wait for your comments. Thank you. I wonder what im going to say in response to that question too. [laughter] you know, i wish i think people often look to historians to come up with a solution to the present. Boy is that something i cant do. What i can say is the times in which our government has functioned best have been moments when people listen to each other in some way or another; right . Our government is grounded on debate and compromise. Sometimes debate is nasty, dirty, rotten and nasty and people scream at each other. And we have had extreme polarization many times, sometimes extreme, extreme polarization, but there needs to be a willingness to debate, however fierce that debate can be. Thats certainly that something right now where were in such a polarized moment, that it is not helping us at all. It is easy for me to say that sitting here in a very pleasant studio talking to you. I dont have a solution for how to change that because obviously congress is reflective of a larger popular will, so part of it were talking about is congress being representative. It is a cycle. The public influences congress. Congress influences the public and were in the middle of that. I dont have a brilliant solution. I sure wish i did on how to promote that kind of atmosphere. But unamericaning, you are an unamerican and im an american is not a useful way for us to find a way to get out of the moment were in. Email, i was wondering whether if her students believe the Political Violence she described ended at the civil war. In his research he found a 1908 duel or fight between a tennessee senator and a constituent, a political opponent a block from the state capitol. Yeah, no, it doesnt end with the civil war. Thats a good point. It doesnt happen on the floor of congress in the way that it did before, and you can see that when some louisiana members they try to get back into congress, try to get louisiana back into the union. They show up. Two violent incidents happened within the capital, not long after louisiana tries to get back into the union. Whats fascinating about that is unlike before the war, you have northerners, i think Thaddeus Stevens is one of them who steps forward and says we want to let them back in . You remember what this was like . The power dynamic has shifted. So what once had power before in congress, no longer does. But as youre suggesting with your question, that doesnt mean that the violence stops. Right . So in a sense you could say southerners maybe are no longer as effective in deploying violence in congress. They are very effective at deploying it in the south during the reconstruction era. Certainly violence continues among politicians in a variety of different ways. So its an important point to make. Im glad that you asked the question that allowed me to make it. The violence doesnt stop. It just shifts or refigures itself. Its tempered in some ways. It shifts ground in other ways. American politics has been violent in a variety of deferent ways for a very long time. The broader question is, what do we do or what have we done to contain that violence . Thats another question that i wish i could offer you the brilliant solution that i do not have. But its an important point to make. It is not as though violence suddenly ended at any given point. Glen, waldwick new jersey. Hi, glen. Caller hi. Thank you to cspan for a Wonderful Program for many many years. Thank you to professor freeman for all your wonderful research and work. I did see you actually back in 2004, you gave a presentation of the 200th anniversary of the duel really enjoyed that. My question for you is this, with your field of blood text, had you considered the david broderick, david terry duel in california. Broderick was a u. S. Senator from california and terry was a Supreme Court justice from california they fought a duel outside of san francisco. Broderick was killed. And given the context of it being california, slavery, splits within the democratic party, in california, particularly, was that something you thought about including in your book . I realize as you mentioned earlier there were literally dozens of examples. Just your thoughts . Are you a professor . Im a professor teaching fire science and broderick was a new york city volunteer fire officer who moved to california and gained a lot of his political power through that and im very involved here locally with history and your viewers should know that the new Visitors Center is going to be named after hamilton and patterson that will be opening in a few years. Im very interested as an amateur. Thanks for that. I did not expect that answer. No. [laughter] certainly the incident that you are describing the duel that you are describing is a famous one and a dramatic one. What i ended up having to do for the book, precisely because as youre suggesting, once you start broadening beyond washington, the field for violence even between people who are in Congress Becomes exponentially enormous. I ended up limiting myself to incidents that took place in washington, either in the capital or on the streets of washington when congress was in session. What i was really interested in is how the violence was shaping what congress was doing and what americans thought about congress and the state of the nation. I had to sort of stop myself from getting beyond that. There are any number of incidents and thats a major one that i could have gone pursuing. I would probably be on year 57 of working on this book if i let myself keep going in that way, but in the end what i was really interested in was the mix of people in congress and in washington from different parts of the union who dealt with violence in different ways, had different understandings of justice and how that worked and different political viewpoints and desires and interests and what happens when you put all those people together in the house or in the senate and force them to deal with contentious issues. That was one of the initial questions that sort of put me into this project. What happens when you have those populations in this very public venue with a National Audience with nation making or breaking possibilities in their decisions, what happens in that kind of a climate when theres that kind of violence . Johns right here in washington, d. C. Go ahead. Caller hi. Im a big fan of american nations by Colin Woodard he relates kind of unslathering episode in the story of hamilton. I will be quick about it. During the revolutionary war, soldiers who were from appalachia in western pennsylvania there was no money to pay them. The Continental Congress gave them ious, gave them script, for years, they were able to use that to pay their taxes to the state of pennsylvania. And then this guy comes along, Robert Morris, and he woodard describes him as a protege of Alexander Hamilton, a protege of Robert Morris, Robert Morris engineers that people can no longer pay their state taxes with congressional script, with these ious. And because of that, these people are forced to sell this script for 2, 5, 10, 15 percent of face value. Friends of Robert Morris, he says, own about wind up owning about 50 of the outstanding script, and then shortly after that, Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris come up with this idea that the u. S. Government is going to pay all of this script in full with 6 interest, paid in hard currency, gold or silver and theyre going to tax the very people, these veterans who were forced to pay, forced to sell their script in order to get the currency. They rebel. Washington goes and puts down the rebellion, but in fact, it is the unsavory john, were going to leave it there and hear from professor freeman. Thats an excellent point and that becomes a controversy, in the early part of hamiltons time as secretary of the treasury, because he very explicitly says there are people who come forward, James Madison is one, who says there should be some way of discriminating between speculators who did just what you said, sort of bought up these ious, assuming, hoping, down the road they would be paid in full, but buying them up for very minimal amounts of money, that there should be a way of discriminating between the speculators and the veterans who are really owed the money by the government and hamilton does indeed step forward and say no. First of all, it is not practical. This is hamiltons argument. It is not practical because theres no way to track how each iou has gone, you cant follow its path. But his argument is also the iou has become a form of currency that are worth of whatever its immediate value is. Thats what he wants to use them. His argument is if they are going to be practical as a form of currency, then their actual stated value needs to be what they are worth. Thats inherently unfair to the people who were given those ious to begin with. Thats valid to say. You can see hamiltons logic for it. You can see the many ways in which that logic is unfair to many people. At the time and not just in later years by historians, but at the time people said that and it was one of the early certainly not the only thing people stepped forward and said what are you doing thats exceedingly unfair and biased and its going to benefit these speculators, these money men who you seem to be so eager to please and impress because you want them to buy into the new government, this is unseemly in many kinds of ways. Theres a logic to that. You can see that. You know, he had his logic. We can debate about whether we agree with it or not. That would have been his counter argument. Tom in denver, you are on the air. Thank you for taking my call. Dr. Freeman, i once saw you debate clay jenkinson. He played Thomas Jefferson and you defended Alexander Hamilton. Thats a long time ago. Caller i hope i didnt have too much coffee. [laughter] no, so heres the funny thing about that. So clay jenkinson, i think hes gone on to do other things, but for a time he i dont know what to call him. Reenactor . Jefferson reenactor, very well known for doing that. I think he had the jefferson hour, radio show, he did a lot of Public Programs being jefferson. Heres the quirky thing about that, he was my senior thesis advisor at college. He was becoming interested in jefferson my senior year in college. I was already interested in hamilton. I remember going into his office in my senior year and he was building a model of [inaudible] and i made some snide remark about jefferson, and he looked at me he had no idea i was interested in hamilton. I didnt know he was interested in jefferson, and i was kind of kidding him. We kind of crossed paths at that little moment when he was beginning his jefferson career and i was into my hamilton career. Then i lost touch with him for a very long time. Then we crossed paths later when he was doing his jefferson work. We crossed paths again, and i think it was the National Endowment for the humanities that decided that we would have this debate. I cant remember now what state it was in. But we did. We had a debate in which i represented hamilton. Clay represented jefferson. It was this public debate. I remember it was filmed. And i remember he made a snide comment about hamilton. He said Something Like its taken me a life time to get to know jefferson but i could do hamilton in a weekend. And he got booed. And i remember he was very upset at the audience. I was kind of shocked. But i guess it meant that somehow or another i at least must have put in my 2 cents for hamilton enough that they kind of stood up for him at that one little moment. I have no idea obviously what your memory of that event was, and it was wonderful fun, and what an honor to be able to do that with a former teacher of mine. And the weirdness of having us end where he ended up. And he was teaching english at the time. I was an english major in college so we had nothing to do with history at all. It was a wonderful debate. Somewhere or another i think i have that on a vhs videotape which means i cant play it at all. But it was a wonderful event. Maybe you can reenact it on your pod cast. Or maybe not. [laughter] what is your pod cast . My pod cast is back story. Its an American History pod cast. Theres four of us historians who cohost it. And what we do is we basically do a deep dive back into history of something having to do with the current moment, but we look at the deeper path of it. So recently there was a show about reparations over slavery. There was a show about black face. We recently for this week we labor day, we did a show about the history of labor in america. But weve done all kinds of shows. We have done cultural shows about collecting the long history of collecting things in america. Whats wonderful about it is its very conversational. The four of us are all people with a strong sense of humor. So its fun to listen to, but who are the father . It is brian ballow, ed airs, nathan comely and myself. It is a fun listen. It is called back story . Yes. I want to close here with a note. This book approaches politics in an unusual way. It does not examine political events or personalities in isolation or reduce them to the level of historical antidote nor does it tackle broader theme to lose sight of participants perspective aiming at a midpoint between broad cultural history and Detailed Analysis of the political narrative it uses the Vantage Point of an ethnohistorian. Which is what . I wrote that partly because when you are writing about the founders, people think about them as great men. My point there is what do you just think about an elite population of men in a particular environment and look at what they do. So by ethnohistorian i meant looking at behavior of a particular population at a particular place. What happens when you look at founders in that way, how could you understand them differently . I put that partly because i dont want people to think about the founders as great men, but as individuals in a particular climate doing smart and unsmart things and how can we make sense of that . Yale historian Joanne Freeman has been our guest for the past two hours. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much for having me.