Transcripts For CSPAN2 Alexis Coe You Never Forget Your First 20240713

[background noises] smack hi, welcome. This is such a great crowd, this is awesome, thank you for being here. So welcome to politics and prose at union market. We are so excited to be here. I am jennifer who is the manager of the store, and behalf of the owners, souls or staff, we would like to welcome you to todays events. Too briefly note some housekeeping items before we get going, we would greatly appreciate it if you turned off or silence your cell phones parade this is my favorite part everybody starts reaching. So not to disturb the conversation. We do have a microphone, its going to be this one for the q a portion of the event. It will get passed around if you raise your hand. If you can see we are recording this evenings event. We do and to use the microphone for any questions that we have. Copies of the book are available at the register if you want to purchase one copy or many copies. We encourage many. There will be assigning after the q as if you like to get your purchase book sign please sign up in an orderly fashion against this sort of figure comic cabinet is the word and looking for. At the conclusion of the talk. It is now my pleasure to introduce alexis company, with her book you never forget your first. This follows a murder in memphis soon to be a major Motion Picture . Ish . With the fresh and lively look at George Washington that firmly separates the man from the legend. Cohost of president s are people too and a consulting producer on goodwins forthcoming History Channel on George Washington. Views the founders through this land. Drawing on previously unexamined archival material, she recounts how he was raised by determine single mother, because the stubbornness that cause them to never back down. Relates the youthful era that cause an International Incident and trayce the effect of his failure to face the contradictions of a free nation reliance on slave labor. Alexis will be in conversation with jamaal, a columnist for the new york times. Please join me and warmly welcoming alexis and jamaal. [applause] civic hello alexis,. Guest hello. Host hello audience. [laughter] lets just get started. Guest lets do it. Host what was the genesis of this book . The first book you mentioned is about a murder of a young couple, and this seems like a very different direction than crime. Guest i am asked this question and ive asked it enough you think i would have a good distinct answer. I dont im going to go on they seem really different. As a historian, when you are in academia and grad school, you study this very narrow time period, which i studied literally a year, 19202. But then after that my first job was at the new york public library. I work in exhibitions of my job was really, our collective memory. So you start with virginia woolfs walking stick, it is all over this place. During that time, i began to think a lot about allison freda forever, which i found an example in a book when i was in grad school. But i didnt want to be someone who is known as a woman, i thought i wanted tenure and i thought you cannot touch love as a woman as a historian or else youre just not going to get a job. Im so i thought about it for years, and i felt like it was a really interesting story and explain so much about the origin of prejudice against samesex love. I felt like if i knew the story, i didnt talk about it make the connections i was somehow complicit in it. Thats how i felt about washington too. I love president ial biographies, the audible series, the president s are people too, would rick put into my mind what was understand this i would read micro histories. I would also read like three or four biographies unchecked biographies of the same time of the conversation with each other. I would emerge with some sort of understanding of the present, hopefully. That just never happen for me with washington. Its the same thing, needled me and i felt like i its a surprising assertion to make because you look at washington books, they are quite a few. Theres one book on allison freda. But i felt like i had to do something to that bookshelf, it needed something. Host in the introduction you talk about how these washington biographies make us not just that there are a lot of them but they all have a similar cast, written by a similar person. I will be honest, at the beginning you say you are a typical washington biographer. Reuel going to washington sites, lived in virginia, and i was like that sounds like me. [laughter] could you talk more about what you are trying to what you worse responding to and the world of washington biographies . Guest hi found, i joke that when these men got their book contracts, before they signed it they had to take a solemn oath and say i will proceed in the exact same manner, i will say all the same things i will have the same goals. A man i will do it the same way. I did not take the oath. [laughter] the thing about it, it first i thought it was kind of funny. Theyll say he was to marvel to be real the gonna break him out, and then they do talk about things that i joke about. They are really in to his thighs in a way that seems inappropriate. [laughter] and nice. [laughter] i have seen nicer. Like hamiltons are also nice. Like hamiltons thighs or adam driver . [laughter] heres the thing while this is often called a feminist biography, if they had written about marthas size, we would all be up in arms. Its also a double standard, it works both ways. I thought that was very strange, there is a defensiveness around washington. There is zero interest in women. I didnt understand we talk about ford, obama, clinton is president s who were raised by single mothers who struggle. Why are we talking about washington . He is the ultimate american story. His mother was born to an indentured servant. That is amazing. So why dont we talk about that . Nothing made sense to me. As soon as i checked the primary sources, what i do specialize and we all know its a little number in the sentence mean. You checked the endnotes. If the endnote keeps quoting a secondary source, and that secondary source quotes another second resource that keeps happening you know something is going on. Host that kind of takes us to the book proper and is divided into four sections. One dealing with washingtons early life, surly middleage, then the revolution, and his death. I found that first part to be so fascinating, in part because you began it with basically a series about washington can you talk about that . Even as someone who knows a bit about the guy, i find it immensely useful to be given kind of an info dump like that. I would love to hear you talk about the reasons for approaching that information like that. Because i think most biographers would try to weave it into the narrative. But here you dont, it kind of jumps up at you but it is also a very useful way of getting into the book. So much of this early part of washingtons life as you discuss it, is to consume to people around him, first context was this young virginia striver. Guest and social climber. Host is a guy who has his eyes at the top. Guest because he cant feed his horse. Theres a lot of struggle going on. In early virginia if you walked it all, you are poor and your looked down upon. That was essential to him. I think the thing is, if you also look at the fronts, if you line up all the washington biographies they all calve the same portrait. I called them visual coffins. I just dont think they do anything for you and the titles are Like Washingtons life, and may be destiny, which i also have a big problem with. No one is destined to do anything. It takes a lot of agency and hard work. I once president ial history, because the presidency and especially the person who established the office, the person it was built around, who everybody pressured into it, its really important that everyone understand him and the presidency. But i think the biographies are alienating both in the ways that their visual presentations, their titles, the way that theyre written. And so i really wanted the reader to feel like if they had never read a president ial biography, that they had everything they needed at the beginning of the book. And then at the beginning of each section to equip them to feel they were the expert. So that was part of it, i really did think a lot about my reader. The other part of it washington has been called by an adams family editor, there president ial editors and edit the papers. Called him vanilla once to my face. [laughter] i think first about adams, you cant compare. They are too much fun thats why their letters survived. They knew that. But the thing is, you can break him out of this mold he can be fun and interesting, but you have to have fun with him as the person. Its called irreverence which is a whole different thing. A lot of the things you see are the way i organized the material in my head when i was trying to make sure i got things across and then decided to be vulnerable and share it with everyone. I do think there are certain things that help you understand. I can tell you in a sentence for example the beginning of the revolution. We can say is they all do he lost more battles anyone. Then why are we talking about the battles . Also is not fighting on the front lines. He is and attends most of the time. He is not out there. Why are we wasting time talking about it . Why dont i just tell you about the battles. But thats less important to me that you understand that something that usually just a sentence but gets lost in the paragraph. The war went on for a long time, it was not quick. And we had one general and the british had many generals. And i really, by presenting you with the chart at the beginning of that section and listing George Washington, George Washington, George Washington and then all these other guys you get a take that knowledge with you. And i just wanted you to have i dont want my reader, longest answer ever. [laughter] i dont want my reader i dont expect you to turn around and give a really long talk about this. I want you to be really excited about it. I want you to turn around and talk about it like in a cocktail party. Host i will say, i was reading half the book recently when is talking to my wife i was set i was reading your new book and i said did you know washington love dogs . [laughter] it was one of the things at the beginning she was like i did not know that. So we talked about the dogs. To your points, i really wanted to talk about these facts i learned about George Washington. Guest its important to know that he loved dogs. He has to be a fully formed person to you. You have to know that he was silly enough to call his dog sweet lips. And you need that, right . It makes him look human, you also need details on other things like you cant just know how many enslaved people he owns. And he felt a certain way. You need to know he assaulted his slaves. You cant just hear that, you need an example of it. So its really me just giving you every detail i can squeeze out of it. Host you said something earlier that got my brain turning. Because this book does so much to demystify it washington, a place in the context of his relationships. And because he is the model for the presidency, what kind it almost demystifies the presidency. Unlike the more traditional biographies it feels like they are really biographies about roman emperors. This is a biography about a president , and a president a certain point is just a dude. Hes just a dude that we chose. I think its interesting how in the book you are always sure to emphasize to us, not just the people around him but washington as an uncertain person, washington is someone who has goals and aims. The thing i had in my mind was danny glover and lethal weapons. Im just too old for this ship and i dont want to do it anymore. Guest we think of the founders is a model list, that they were all in agreement at all times and that they understood what they were doing. They set out with all of the details worked out, and that is just not true. Washington was annotating the constitution while he was president. He was doing the bestie could. Host i found that so revealing, getting into his head about how he understood himself doing the job. Guest i think again this humanizes him in the office that should give us comfort in the messiness in some ways. Host a big part of the book deals with washington as a slaver. You cant not deal with that. Its one of the overriding identities of his entire life. Guest its his main business. Host right, he was poor his entire life, and always concerned about what he was going to do about the farm, how hes going to feed and house other people he owned and what they were going to do for him. I think you talked about for the end about how washington would always say that yeah im going to free my slaves at some point, but never really acted on that. I wonder if you could talk about his ambivalence there. His unwillingness to take the extra step. You make note that he appears in virginia, who did take that extra step. Guest i also feel like this is something that biographers were almost trying to pull over on this. They make it sound as if washington had this this is helpful to them because its hard to revere someone, which i think they do, which is a bias. Its hard to do that you cant see him as having this beautiful realization. So washington begins to have, not a change of heart, but a change of priority during the revolution. And that he meets different people. The argument is sometimes that enslaved and free black men fought during the revolution and thats what changed his mind. No, he did not want that. He was really reluctant about it. Just like billy lee, his righthand man is always presented to the narrative as if hes always been there. And he is a representative of everyone rather than the exception. What i wanted to do was have that present, because it is present in his mind. It isnt as important to him as anything else. He has presented his writing home to mount vernon a lot, hes very concerned about it. Whats he concerned about it mount vernon . His labor force, his forced labor force. To me, to be honest, its understand him and his anxiety and priorities, it had to be there the whole time. As close as i could get it. And the material is there. Its like i wanted to use motion a bunch of my micro histories into one biography because i think it can be that way. But i think that, the thing is washington its not oh, i wish you wouldve done this. Its understanding why he ultimately did the thing that he did. He could have sold his land. Police say he was cash poor, we call them planters which i think is misleading. They are plantation owners, which is a genteel inflection of a forced labor camp. They were all cash poor, but they had lands, and no one had more land than George Washington because he had gained a ton of really, really choice land during the french and indian war when he fought for the british. Which i think he wouldve happily continued to do, and we might be british subjects had they just given him the promotion he wanted. [laughter] he was a reluctant rebel, he was not some idealistic. We are not talking about thomas paine here. I think that is important to think about the things that he is saying are not quite true. He saying i dont have the money, i cant do this, cant do that. He could have if he really wanted to. If he wanted to be the person that lafayette thought he could have. He had examples, people like to say he had no examples. There were people in virginia who did this who had to leave under duress because of their masters were terrified of this. I just think lets look at him clearly, and we also do that lets talk about how its kind of a dick move for martha. He left her he pass the buck to her and left her an incredibly vulnerable position. It ended up hurrying the inevitable, but the same problem existed that he just did not want to see and be responsible for, which was the separating of families forever. Host if you could refresh my memory, how many people were enslaved at mount vernon kind of throughout . Guest it fluctuated. So martha was married before, she had two children from a previous marriage. And that custis estates had over 130 enslaved people. Washington inherited ten enslaved people when he was 11. That number swelled because he purchased them. The other weird thing is that his biographers would say an enslaved man was sold to him. Its not like he was like oh fine, ill take them. [laughter] he went to richman, he went wherever with the explicit purpose of buying people. That number swelled to 214 by the time he dies. Host the thing for me, reading about washington as a slave owner is it also reminds you that most of the people he saw, for most of his life were enslaved people. I think, i live in charlottesville and monticello is right there. When i went up there they talked about in those terms they are that most people jefferson saw, most of the time, the people he enslaved. That for me at least radically changes about how you think about these men. And how they mustve thought about themselves, because it wasnt a salon every day with all the founder buddies. Guest bain and trent ben franklin thinking big thoughts. [laughter] host it was sunup to sundown most days seeing the people you enslaved, thinking about fast track at some point during the day when you had to discipline. Guest maximizing. Host right i dont know about the question is more of an observation. Guest i think theres something really worthwhile and thinking about that in talking about that. Washington was really, people talk about he was so impressive that we thought about new schemes and inventions to maximize profit and labor to make sure that he was applying that. I think thats really important because we do think of them as sort of doing important work all of the time. They were messy, they were drama queens, and they were also cruel and thought themselves to be better. Its important that we understand that on a sunday washington would hang out with his wife and make enslaved people rowboats and race across the potomac. Thats what he did on a sunday. I want to know he went to church sometimes, but i also want to know he did that. Host a big part of the book, and to me i never really thought about as far as washington goes as him as a patriarch not just for enslaved people but for a large number of young men and young women some have various connections but part of a washington household and washington as the keeper of many awards. And you say this is something traditionals dont deal with at all. Its in terms of washingtons life, it seems to be a very big part of his life and something he was very invested in. Guest they are really married to this narrative which is that he had no biological children, our conception of children has really changed over time. It wasnt uncommon to marry a woman who had children. That was a really good sign that she could have more. He is certainly not the only founder, Dolley Madison had a child, and they were all married the well sons, they were also terrible. [laughter] so it was so strange to me they spent so much time, again it doesnt further our understanding of him, to talk for ten pages about why he couldnt have children. Instead, why dont we look at the fact that he was lousy with children. They were everywhere and they were always giving him problems. Thats what the archives tele spirit spirit he wrote so many letters every single day lecturing finding a better tutor, giving a lot of unsolicited love advice. That was a part of his worldview. Thats what he saw every day. You dont read those letters and think, oh hes not really invested in this kid. He is so angry and its again, its not like oh theyre just like us. But when he lectures his grandson, he doesnt say step grandson, we say step grandson. When he lectures washington its about losing his umbrella. [laughter] host the other part of that in some thing that really struck me throughout was how much, not just that washington seems followed by death, most of the men on his side, the washington side of the family died pretty young. But also he, to certain point, becomes hyper aware his death and begins almost acting with his legacy and minds. How are people going to remember we when im dead . So what should i do now to ensure those memories are positive. Guest i think that was actually true. He was very sensitive. He was sort of untouchable the first four years. And the second four years he was not and he became really angry about that. He surrounded himself, he created his cabinet with people disagreed, jefferson leading the pack. He thought, this will be like a counsel war and i will ask them offer their opinions, because he did really value other peoples opinions. And then i will decide what i want to decide. And he thought he was still a general and that will be fine, that would not it was a disaster and he realizes worst fear was in partisanship and he became really aware of how people thought about him when they werent saying nice things all the time. And he wasnt just, the most famous person in the world. That was really rough for him and then he did really think about he was a control freak, how could i get control of the situation . Thats not to say a emancipated the people he enslaved was entirely legacy building, but it certainly was a big part of it. We dont want to deny that it had a real impact on these peoples lives. Good and bad. Because again, they never saw family members. Ever again. But he was really aware of that. What he chose to preserve and what he didnt is very telling to. He understood that we would probably judge him about slavery so he would have to take care of that. He begins to edit his papers all live back to the french canadian war when he was in his 20s, and there are parts he doesnt touch. And those parts are about first americans, they are about native americans, and he is awful. I use words that i think should be again, just like forced labor camps, we talk about this we should just say genocide. We should just say it, thats it. He left all of that and he was proud of it. He was proud to be called the town destroyer. And that means raising a town he was proud of telling indians that their way of life is over, aye mans way is better and why dont they just follow his exam example and he would save it in a very paternalistic way. Im to figure out my farm, you should figure out youre from, its the only way of life. He thought that was great. He thought we would think that was a very positive thing. Host before we go to questions, there is one thing i think is strangely relevant today, since we have the impeachment trial over and everything. Washington this is wellknown that when he left office in his farewell address he warned about faction and all of those things. That is he made mention of earlier, he sort of unavoidably became a partisan figure. One of the more interesting anecdotes you tell is on his birthday, maybe his laughter of his last term, someone made a motion in the house to kind of adjourn for a little bit to celebrate washingtons birthday. And people alike now. Guest it was like dancing in the street before that and people alike know, were not interested in that anymore. Host what you think, not washingtons life. Se but washingtons presidency and the way in which faction and partisanship consume american politics very quickly. What relevance you think it has for the presence in the moment when people lots of faction partisanship and people seem to have an idea theres a way we can banish those things. It doesnt seem likely can it just seems part of the deal. So from washington do think there are any lessons we can take out a manager to deal with it . Guest partisanship is inevitable, it doesnt have to be a terrible thing. The thing that he was wrong about that, he was wrong that you could just ban it forever and you could have a unifying figure. It is the job of the president to do a much better job of being a unifying figure. And then say which you will about obama, he could control himself and he acted in an appropriate manner. Because at the end of the day he is serving the entire american body, not just the people who voted for him. I think we need to expect more of our leaders. Not civility, that is meaningless in a lot of ways. Say what you mean, but also act in a way that serves everyone. I think at the ends, we as the electorates, have more power than its hard to make it really frustrated and it seems impossible to fix. But again, washington was not a natural revolutionary. He got pushed into a corner and he had to find his way out. Im not saying we should stage a revolution. [laughter] were close but were not there. [laughter] but that we can demand that things get done. Because we are at the point or we have people like mcconnell, who washington did sort of warned against. They would just get nothing done they would try to maintain power and thwart everything else. We need to focus on holding them accountable. I think that is our job and thats the best way we can improve upon the legacy of the founders. Not emulate them exactly, because that was never the intentions. Host is question time. This mic will be going around. I guess raise your hand im going to urge you to ask the question, i wont have a microphone, but i can say loudly if i dont think youre asking a question. [laughter] please just get that intonation at the end and it will make me a very happy person. [laughter] thank you very much is a fascinating talk. My question is basically you alluded to something about the dislikes goebel aspects of washington, especially slaveholding. Im curious if you can tell us the most likable parts of his personality, maybe its the most admirable . And anything that gives you have been yet or something that talks about his personalities questio question. Guest that was a question but thats three questions i will try to get through them. [laughter] i think the thing with washington that surprised me, maybe his worst attribute is when he was done with you, he was done with you. He could be very cold he could let you possibly die in a french prison. [laughter] he would claim he didnt want thats thomas paine, he would say he didnt want to sell enslaved people but then he would sell what he could not discipline. A man he put on a ship to barbados where he knew he had maybe three years to live under those conditions. He told the captain of the chiship, disguised bad news knowing that he might not even make it there. He knew what he was doing. I think that washington did have a great sense, for a Certain Group of people what was right and what was wrong. And he did believe in ambition and opportunity. And those are fundamental american values, it only applied to Certain Group of people. I think he was, he was a good friend. He could be a good friend to someone like lafayette. He was into very exceptional people. He had great things, he was also an amazing athlete. That is something, something w we everyones always grasping to describe why him . Why did they revere him . It something we cant describe. We couldnt ascribe about something we see in this room. Its charisma, its the hardest thing to really go into detail about. I think that was probably his greatest attribute something we can least describe. I am curious how you think about the importance of telling a complicated narrative about a historical figure, thinking about in the meat to eric, when we are like figuring out whats black and whats white, and how to make sense of gray areas. Im thinking about like with kobe bryant, hallie was memorialized, how you think about grabbing all those details and telling a story. What you think is important there . Guest you might be able to answer to contemporary sense, but for me for someone Like Washington and jefferson we cant really allow cancel culture. Because you cant cancel them, you cant cancel washington. Which is why i dont understand the defensiveness. I dont pose a threat to washington. [laughter] he is going to be just fine. [laughter] i think the thing is, we have to we have to remember these are people. We see them on their best days and their worst days. And we to allow that to be balanced. Somebody like kobe bryant, i dont know, im not a sports fan. I think it is sort of the same idea that you have to try to look at them on the whole, and not let them be defined by the worst thing they ever did or the best thing they ever did. Thats really difficult when you dont know the person. I think of washington now as a person, who i was terrified would haunt me last night as i spent the night at mount vernon. I do think of him as light, a person was amazing, and really disappointing, just like anyone else you know. Host i think to add to that, part of the thing you have to do is to avoid moralizing. Its difficult, especially for men Like Washington and jefferson or madison or all of them. Because they were involved in something that was evil. You can communicate that, but he think its important, you present not not matteroffactly, but this is a part of their life we are trying to understand it understand the relationship to it. You as the reader can draw your own conclusions. The goal is not moralization his understanding and thats a difficult thing to do. And all kinds of writing, but especially in writing about fraught individuals. Guest i think is in sting about people who get really mad at jefferson with his hypocrisy with his beautiful words of any live this life. Its okay to also engage in magical thinking. Jefferson did not have the clout. If he had emancipated slaves if he had written the things and then acted in the way that was consistent with them, we probably would not know his name. Annette told me that when i interviewed her a few years ago. That is not true for washington. Wouldnt have made a difference . Would we have had a civil war a lot sooner . I dont know. But its okay to engage not thinking too, you can be flexible but keep dealing with the person. It is a circular thinking. That is sort of how life is, nothing is really clean. Suffers, thank you so much for coming. And i was just reading through a bit of the introduction when you speak about the five men of washington. I was curious to hear how you thought about writing. Writing so directly about historians but you are also writing a history. And im kind of curious about that dynamic itself, about choosing to name people and how you decided to do that . Guest i have a graduate degree so i do come from a background in which i think about historiography. I think about how all of the things that have been written before are in conversation. What i could possibly learn from that and how i went to enter the conversation. I am a popular story which means when i get to chapter what its narrative. I am telling you a story. I needed to really be direct in the beginning and night needed to situate really quickly and hundreds of years of research. And the only way i know how to do that is to give you the best examples i have commented talk about why i thought it was wrong. And to do in this way, which again is the revealing of my process. I began to think of them as thigh men of dad history. And thats just a name i give them and whats funny is i put it as a placeholder, which was also by the way the title, and it was in brackets and my editor, both my editor and my husband both Read Everything and they took the brackets out and capitalized thigh and men and dad history and i thought okay, theyre actually reacting to this. If thats engaging you and really making you understand it not as a sentence but a general approach, the same way the charts or anything else, then we are in it together. Its inviting you into that process. Again, that whole section is meant to just prepare you to start out a totally different way because then we start out with his mother. With his story being told through his mother and it is never told that way its always through his father. For someone like ellis skipped ahead and says heres 21 we dont know what happened they had before. Which is like a move,. [laughter] with an enviable one at times. You have to try and work with what you have. So the last few weeks is been a lot of discussions about what the founders thought about executive power. Everything from they were very afraid of the tyrants, or the article two gives you the ability to do every thing you want, im curious as a framer and also the first president , what was his perspective of the limit of the executive, and how did that change as his role changed from president of the Constitutional Convention to actually the president. Guest thats the thing hes always the president hes always presiding but is not actually writing this things parties giving us input saying how things would work. But that is madison, thats jefferson, it would not put monroe in that group. If you talk to washington scholars, monroe was not a great thinker. [laughter] there so much shade thrown at him. [laughter] was really just annotating it. I dont think he had this intentional the idea that the founders were monoliths and they all said yes this is what we decided a tower moving forward. This total bs. They were fighting all the time and thats why we know partisanship happened. I think its really important to remember that. A healthy amount of fighting is good. Its a conversation. But it is so ridiculous to imagine that a country who had fought eight long years to break free of a monarch, of a king, wanted absolute power. If they wanted that, they wouldve had a king. Theres a romance novel called american royals, and it is about how washington decided to be a king its sort of interesting is the same publisher so they sent it to me. We dont have that for a reason. But bixbys upset to hear that. I also think its sort of an abuse of our history to presented in this this way. I think people do that and if their big general you just shouldnt trust them. They could sit three times and you take it away like a toy. Theyre not allowed to do it. So i do think that is ridiculous. I also saw a really inappropriate tweet in the white house account. You have to present yourself as representing all americans. You never saw a robot into this but you have these tweets because i dont think w had twitter. Theirs is tweet that said by todays standards of the democrats, the following people would be impatient of course it starts out with the washington and lincoln is on there. Anyone can be impeached, the whole point if you are president you can be impeached. Everyone can be impeached. I think in other words, their greatest fear was that we fell into decay, because we allowed corruption to be rampant. You can say they agreed on anything that would be it. What corruption was, they did not agree on. And i think thats the best way to think of it. So anytime its presented otherwise, you know they dont know what they are talking about. You mentioned looking at the sources and other biographies. I was wondering if theres any where you started with your sources and if theres any thing you are trying to uncover, what sources you used to find your new perspective . Guest when you research a woman theres very little in the archives, you really have to work hard to find it. There is an baris meant of riches when it comes to the founders thats why there is no excuse, to generalize the material is there this just too much of it. Theres something called founders online. I go to the archives, i go to the library of congress, i went to mount vernon and i spent a lot of time and all of these places. But you, in your home can google founders online, you can type in dog for example you can type in sweet lips, and you can see jefferson asking about sweet lips. You see slots as an example theres all kinds of results for that. [laughter] jefferson is a single dad and he tells his daughter not to address like a slip basically he says dont dress like a slovenly slot. Really easy to check these things. But i did when something seems strange to be washingtons father it was the first time i realized something was wrong. He said washingtons father wanted to tame his mother. And he had this desire to do so. There is no ended note. And he didnt feel like he had to give one. I am plagiarizing myself here probably worse that i wrote it, we just accept that we think sure, shrew and a shrewd needs taming, sure enough. There are other things, like the story that washington, that his mother wrote a letter to the Virginia Assembly during the war and asked for help that she needed money. Of course i was really embarrassing to washington because he was the general. She never wrote the letter. She never wrote the letter. She talked about struggling as all people in their 70s did, which is why virginia was giving out pensions to older people. And of course they were Like Washingtons mom lives here, shes an older person, she struggling and should be first on the list. Theyre trying to do him a solid, but she never did that. They all think how could she do that to him how could she embarrassing . She didnt. And not only that, she is really, really struggling and he admits that later which none of them cite this letter in which he said she had a terrible manager the stealing from her and mismanaging everything. I guess she was telling the truth. He writes to benjamin harrison, he will be the president of the forgotten dynasty, the harrisons, he writes and says shes fine, ignore this, dont give her any money, its fine. And then he writes to his mother whos actually struggling months later. So instead of his viewing her as an awful person saying he was being kind of negligent toward his elderly mother. Its just really a matter of checking those sources and when it doesnt check out, asking what its another way to look at this . And it doesnt readily come to me, i really have to think about it for a while, it takes me forever to write these things, because i have to think about what could possibly have been going on and then present three different options and suggest which when i think might work best. I cant decide between two questions, so please feel free to answer it whichever would you prefer. The book is really funny, and it says that on the back too, but is also a serious topic, so i was wondering how you maintain that humor or playfulness. And then second, you mentioned in the forward or the prologue, how your perspective as a woman allows you to read sources differently than the men had. I was also wondering how your perspective as a public historian as someone who is been in that museums world allows you to present the sources differently than a traditional academic historian mites. Guest interesting. People keep calling it funny, which is nice. I think the preface in the introduction are funny. I dont think the rest is funny. I think i do have a dark humor, i know that about myself. I think if you read my first vicki would see that while they are really different, theres the same sort of tone to them. But i dont think its so funny. The thing is its not so much that i am bringing this female perspective. Its not, im just one of three women who have done it. And thats three women compared to hundreds of men. Hundreds. These other two women, one was a conservative writer and the other was a novelist. They were not historians. That also Something Else i am bringing. Its not so much about its deviating, and i feel its not just that i am a woman, but if women and people of color and other people took on president ial biographies, which means they also have to do micro histories because that has been left out of the narrative. If they do this double duty, if they do all of the labor, i dont think they would miss these things either. I think it is just the people have written washington biographies are all men of a certain age from a certain background. They dont have curiosities about certain things. There are many men, who i know who write about politics who have some curiosity about half the population. Or are not obsessed with virility. I also think there is a changing of the guard. History wasnt even a profession. There wasnt a way to go about it forever, it was the last hundred years it was figured out what it means to be historian. I think its an ever evolving thing. And thats why do so important that every generation needs new storytellers. And historians have to do all this work and they have to think about the women who have been dismissed or mischaracterized and we also have to look at these works and see what was going on. A more dramatic example of this than what im doing here is the course with a net gordon reeves. She taught us in the most dramatic way, that we dont know what we think we know. These men who were defensive about jefferson have been denying this thing is been obvious forever. She wasnt the first person to say it but people had done it in the wrong way. They had done a psychological approach or whatever. She did in the right way and shed all the best examples, and it was a really tight delivery. Everyone is always improving on each other, and i hope this is not, this is the biography written by the woman and theres all the ones written by the man. So i hope this is the beginning. I cant do it all, there are too many president s. [laughter] see when i think we have time for one more question. Guest now everyone is silent, be the last one. So kind of going off your last point, do you think we are entering into a new age of history . Like during the 70s there is new social history like women do exist we should probably talk about them. You think its safe to go ahead and say now we can start taking shots at some of these figures who we thought were infallible before . Guest i hope so, i hope its an ever evolving thing. I think there are probably other books on washington would not draw this crowd. And i think at the same time while there is an interest within this crowd, i was at mount vernon last night and i thought they told me there were a few hundred people who it rsvped. I was sure it would be different crowd. It wasnt, its the same count ive seen there, its a sea of old white people. They were and excited. I thought i was going to get a lot of comments, questions, and people were going to be very offended. Maybe they just didnt speak up. [laughter] but they were excited about something and excited to have a conversation, bring something, bring conflict thats not saying washington was awful, he was a terrible person we should not study him because he did x, y, and z. Saying like this is really complicated, lets try to work this out. I do think this is the next step, but i do think like we are supposed to get better as a country. And i hope personally i feel im Getting Better as a person, friend, wife, mother, and help everyone aspires to be that way too. C1 thank you very much. [applause] thank you. [applause] host i believe it will be signing books. That will be up here. We have the signing up front we have plenty of copies by the front desk up there if you will line up going this way we will get started. Tonight on the communicators, Public Policy Vice President luther low on digital competition and why he thanks google has betrayed the internet. He is interviewed and a reporter from political. Stu met googles steering all this traffic to itself and therefore in a sense the oxygenating the entire world wide web. And stiefel he innovation and ultimately harming consumers because they are not getting access to the best information from across the whole internet. Spivak watch the communicators tonight at eight eastern on cspan2. Weeknights this week we are featuring book tv programs showing whats available every weekend on cspan2. Tonight books on the american worker, first Steven Greenhouse looks the challenges workers face today and then amity slays has economic debate of the 1960s to those that are happening now in her book great society. After that its author mary gray and her book goes to work which looks at the work force that drives amazon, google, and other large tech companies. Watch book tv this week and every weekend on cspan2. cspan, created by private industry, americas Cable Television company as a Public Service brought to you today for your television provider. This week on the communicators we want to introduce you to luther lowe who senior Vice President for Public Policy for a site called yelp. Mr. Lowe, what is it yelp and what do you do . Guest thank you so much for having me on today, peter. It is a pleasure it yelp is a website and Popular Consumer applications that allows people to connect with local businesses. It is a service that empowers and protects consumers and allows people to discover great local gyms and a way for consumers to warn fellow consumers about not so great businesses. Host how many visitors a month do you have . Guest it depending on how you want to break it out there is obviously folks have that access it via mobile web