Extensive manuscript collections largely comprised of the correspondences and the diaries and the manuscripts speeches, legal and business papers of both senior and junior president adams as well as all the members of this preeminent political dynasty. These documents remain so vital in the efforts to understand the evolution of american democracy, diplomacy and identity. They strive to make the papers and the entire 14 million item collections available to anyone with an interest in american life, culture and history and give it for free. If you value of this and enjoy y programming like todays talks and you are not a supporter, i would encourage you to do so. Tonight represents just one of many program seminars, exhibitions and workshops that we host. If you dont already have a copy, grab one on the way out and its also available on the website. I want to mention we will have copies of the democracy on sale after the program and i think we can get them signed by the authors. Now it is my pleasure to introduce the speaker Nancy Isenberg and andrew berstein. The professor of history at Louisiana State university. For 2016 best seller book white trash, 400yearold untold history of class in america has become an International Sensation and tackles one of todays most intensely debated social themes, costefficient and inequality in america. Doctor burstein also find a home at the State University as the professor of history. The 2,015th of democracy views illustrates how Thomas Jefferson slavthomasjeffersons life and s been used to support modernday partisan politics on both sides of the aisle. Anand the isenberg and Andrew Burstein are regular contributors to salon. Com and contribute pieces about modernday political and Cultural Affairs for a variety of the news outlets. Please join me in welcoming Nancy Isenberg and Andrew Burstein. [applause] is the candidate likable enough inquiring minds want to know. Because you have to come across as likable, be a factor. Thats what democracy has come to. Like high school elections, the rifle, the common touch. Its not just a question of knowledge and judgment were a popularity context. It is a problem of democracy. The. Of the deep study and practical experience would backfire despite being two of the most recognizable spaces in the course of your they were to be remembered as the symbols of entitlements, nepotistic corruption with the fullblown democracy. We have written this book because im told now, no historical investigator has dissected the first of only two pairs of father and son president s. The president bush, president adams resisted the party affiliation. To be true to their values, they had to be independent of any party orthodoxy. Let us start with an undisputed fact. They forcthey foresaw the defece others ask in the american imaginary. For the personal favorite i have sworn upon. Though you wouldnt know it, he proceeds jeffersons truths is a half truth. Hes ironic, sarcastic, and this in 1778. A man must be his own, get a sph statue made and perpetuate fame. In many later years as we affectionately call the sun sune devoted himself by the initial j. Qa. He recalled jefferson as one who is, and i quote from a burning ambition coupled with an invented memory led him to mistreat the first. The second exception. Ive always been a prophet of guilty and punished accordingly, a martyr complex, we might also attribute. They refused to pander. They didnt charm like Abraham Lincoln with the melancholy. They argued idiosyncratically, hardly mysterious or handshaking lake and genial. But if that was a matter of style. They are painted as antidemocratic conservatives, yet they were neither antidemocratic or conventionally conservative. They conceptualized on chrissy in ways that make sense to the modern student of history. Concerned as we are it should be with the gap between rhetoric and reality. If jefferson is associated and optimistic principles of a democratic spirit watches in the eligible voters, that happens is, the older especially, probed human psychology and came away with a differenc different lessc view of popular democracy. The tendency to corruption exists in all forms of government and john adams felt even the most educated class of hunger for power. And that they should be isolated in the senate where the wellborn and be able, as he wrote, reciprocated from a mass and unable to dominate on their own. Its why he detested the chemical legislature that Benjamin Franklin proposed. One house was more prone to corruption and to. On the other hand, john adams concern about acrosstheboard popular election launched into one fact. The multitude has always been credulous, and the few are always artful. Let that sink in. [laughter] clitoris peachpit convince Common People, just about anyone can do to support the idea. The system have to protect the public from the foster, hypocrisy and superstition. Above all of father into some believe that it required inaccurate information slipping between citizens and their representatives. Its neither conservative nor liberal to campaign for the citizenry. Our book is about what made this beautiful and perfect dynasty tick. The intimate understanding between a father and a son, they shared a library, they marveled together at the republican Marcus Cicero and in perfect ways patterned their lives after him. Cicero respected the concept of wall and the favorite of justice. He prescribed the three branches of government we adhere to today. In their abundant correspondence which history overlooked the two president s had any talk with political dynasty and it was never about the outright power. It was about the feelings of inner satisfaction nevertheless across the correspondence any reader can see a motion move from the page with little self censoring. We give emphasis to the period in their public lives when they were diplomats in europe. As a teenager and largely without parental supervision, john quincy trekked across Eastern Europe and scandinavia. Once he and his father braved stormy crossing from the english coast, set ashore on an obscure cold backwater in the netherlands. Johnny come as he was then known, preserved the life of his father who was subject to all sorts of bodily ills. Ills. Jonathan expertly guided him back to civilization. The bond formed between the adams is, father and son in europe from 1778 to 1785 condition everything. Representing the Young Country and abroad, theabroad, they wery citizens of the world. And to a greater extent, then anyone else of the era. They stood as proud americans, converts to old world forms, as many wrongly indicated. They believed in expertise and governments that promote expertise over popularity. Yet remarkably, it was John Quincy Adams, the second president adams, was the first to pronounce in his inaugural address that america deserved to be called a functional representative democracy. It wasnt jefferson, whose typically seen as the first man of the people. It wasnt Andrew Jackson either, the impulsive vindictive jackson. Here he is stringing up his hapless predecessor, John Quincy Adams. Jackson had aids to compose his speeches. He craved loyalty and reward of his friends. That was his style. Making more upstarts to profit in the southern manner as slave owning entrepreneurs. Jackson didnt read history, let alone invite political thought. Jackson wasnt predisposed to the democracy in any real way. It seems an odd thing to say, but john adams lived more like a republican than Thomas Jefferson. And John Quincy Adams was a better democrat than Andrew Jackson. Wrap your mind around that one. You see, democracy is proclaimed more than it is practiced. That is all the president s adams were saying. On the basis of the competence of studies of history and human psychology. John adams was a disciple of the enlightenment as much as jefferson. At the heart of this revolutionary movement with the impulse to unmask the superstition like the divine right of king and cultivate independence and thought. John adams held that a desire for fame could be found in every heart. The audienc audience, if you nee masses to their masses into the night. This is why he identified at the danger of the cult of personality. The cult of personality is when the personality of the leader is equated with the nation. The worshiped idol replaces b. , the people, as the soul of the body politic. Now, adams botched the cold of close and personal first when he was in france. Thethere, franklin seduced the educated elite as americas first rock star. Adams understood the desire among human beings to be seen and loved. She zoomed in on the course of spectatorship then the opposite fear of insignificance long before any views that any american who wants 15 minutes of famfame committee placed the dar of adoratio adoration at the cef his constitutional theory. What was greater was the most superficial of the dazzling distraction. He explained that first richness and beauty shore up the power in aristocracy. The society divided people into classes. The Political Parties used the same method in the candidates and the attractive appearance of the prominent names, the glamorous reputation. If that wasnt enough, lies, flattery, his delightful words. Would keep the supporters mesmerized. It cannot divert the mad scramble for the public recognition. They are responsible for the worship of the western view. Since the majority of people would never take to the stage, they live vicariously through their idols. Vicarious was his word. The people felt a special sympathy for the powerful. It wasnt just a corrupt politician rode into office on the inflated reputation. It was thawas that the voters le show. The document these things. They are not collectively drawn so as to simply designate with the current political scene. We were researching long before the current political scene. Americans told themselves they value independent thinking in the enlightened and sense of the phrase. But in fact, citizens still swoon of the rich and famous. They join crowds as cheering fans. Adams extrapolated from this to say that the mentality is a dangerous force contained within democracy, and its often inflamed by the partisan press. Party organizers from Alexander Hamilton and forward have found a way to exploit the imaginary bond between voters and their heralded leaders. In the past president ial election in 1788, 89, hamilton made sure that the southern electors withheld their votes for adams by spreading a rumor that new englanders might steal the election from washington. From hamiltons perspective, there could be only one paying and one idolized star. Washingtons presidency barcode this royalty. The chief executive was housed in the grand mansion. Hhe rode in a lavishly equipped heritage and held receptions with the d. League. He made two grand national tours, like the king of england, his birthday is a national holiday. Washingtons image was known to all. A visiting dignitaries remarked that americans kept treasured portraits in their homes, much like the russians worshiped icons of the saints. Now adams cleverly dissected the cult of washington. He used his skil skills skill te worship of washington. The generals first, and most important trade, was to emphasize his handsome face and next, his tall stature. He was 6foot three. Evident in his elegant form, his graceful movements, and this large estate. Washington was a man of few words. Adams joked that his fellow virginians adored him because the mom delete, the geese and are swans. Image matters more than genius. Adams knew this. We knew it to be true as well. Voters take manufactured qualities as signs of an eight character. Adams of course suffered by comparison to washington. He acquired the nasty nickname of his rotundity and was used in the election of 1800. Political gamesmanship became more circus like by the time the second and third the president ial contest. In 1824, when then secretary of state John Quincy Adams was seeking the presidency, a cartoon captured the foot race, socalled, and morphed into this today the president ial horse race. And this is relevant because tonight is the kentucky derby. [laughter] in the cartoon, John Quincy Adams is ahead of william crawford, and Andrew Jackson, dressed in his military uniform, is on their tail and coming up fast. John adams stands at the front of the crowd cheering on his son. While the spectators place wagers on the outcome. This is democracy at its worst. The Election Campaign is a gamble. The excitement of the race is what matters the most. In 1828, when second president adams lost the election to jackson, he found himself not only running against a national hero, but against a far better organized pro Jackson Party machine. The new yorker, martin van buren, with jacksons election nearing guru building on the earlier new yorker, hamiltons, plato. Jacksons admirers tried to re mold him into the air of the noble washington, but the effort failed because jackson was known to be impulsive and blustering, and too many concerned, autocratic. The general was promoted with a lavish campaign biography, the first of its kind. His brash arbitrary behavior was recast as a cardinal virtue. That is, he exhibited frontier boldness. While the incumbent adams was overly cerebral. There was something even darker at work here. John quincy adams concluded jacksons followers, and this was in his words is very important, obsequious champions of executive power. And jacksonian democracy was in fact a warrior cult of conquest. John christy is a smokescreen. Western expansion drove politics. Slaveholders wanted slavery to expand to the pacific. Behind the screen was a union of land speculators and southern slaveholders. John quincy adams was elected to congress in 1830 after his one term presidency ended. It was an unusual move, never to be repeated. He remained in the house until he died in 1848. Parties rolled. The art of party drilling, as he called it, was caused by military. Party membership became riots and that is his word, too, with sanctimonious calls to liberty, allowing the southern democrats to purchase auxiliary support for slavery from the free men of the north. What could be a greater irony . Jackson, the head of the democratic party, jefferson, the supposedly small party, was now a party of unchecked executive power. Electioneering rhetoric cast John Quincy Adams as a princely air, a man comfortable with titles and rituals of the royal european court, where he had so long served as a diplomat. Somehow, like his father before him, he was a secret promoter of monarchy. The sad truth is this, the colt of personality twists the truth and the voters often didnt care. And for John Quincy Adams, what happened was that a slaveholding oligarchy had taken hold of the presidency, along with the illusion of textbooks call jacksonian democracy. It would be helpful at this point to elaborate a bit on the two epigraphs, both from 1814, that opened our books. The first is from expresident john adams. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that didnt commit suicide. It is in vain to say democracy is less vain, less proud, selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than the aristocracy or monarchy. Under all forms of government when unchecked they produce the same effects of fraud, violence and cruelty. He means there needs to be a healthy democratic elements in the government, a force that promotes class balance. There will always be money and interest. These need to be contested within the institutions of the government by those whose interests are not so confined. Thats democracy, like government by the few or by a monarch, is inherently unstable because equality is impossible. Because some emerge and become privileged. If democracy doesnt been morphed into aristocracy or the money oligarchy, its influence on its own accord, devolving into anarchy. This is heavy stuff. They say dont christy tends to stability, but we know that it doesnt. Exhibit a. , social media in 2019. Democracy is anxious. It is anxious because it envy. It needs a survival plan. And thats all that adams senior meant in referring to democracy suicidal tendencies. Democracy did not, does not automatically produce equal Educational Opportunity or equal access to government. Good government, therefore, requires expertise unbiased. Representation that doesnt have to compete with a thousand voices all clamoring for something. Now, here is jay qa also writing in 1814 in his case during the period when he was part of a negotiating team seeking to end. He writes in truth, human nature itself is little more than a composition of inconsistency. Throughout his political career, the second president adams regarded capitol hill debates as the drama perpetrated by scheming men. The moral philosophy, his father read thrented the moral philosoe upheld emphasized the dictatorships of the faculties, the manhood of self command, here citing adam smith. Its what led them to be independent, to go against the grain and refusing to adhere to the dictatorship of the party. It was moral ambiguity. The politics was and is about the nature of authority into the character of those who wield it. Human nature rules people are ruled by the authority they accept. We understand why the adams is not perceived as democratic. For them, the leaders ought to be in secular terms among the elect. It, the delectable shouldnt be the sole qualifications for the elections. But under the twoparty system, thats what often determines whs in coming electability. The outcomes, the elect are meant to perform a positive public service, to sacrifice the ease and fortune in order to be the eyes and ears of the whole people. Through our historical lens, we see the president ial elections often contributes little to advancing the real democracy. The adams is praised the town meeting because for them, it was the true Training Ground whereas the older adams put it, all the inhabitants acquired from infancy, the custom of discussing, deliberating and judging publicaffairs, so they could speak effectively to their representatives. His son took this idea to a deeper level, practicing what he preached and rejoining the congress after his four years as president. Just as his father praised the town meeting, the son became a champion of the right of petition. It is the expression of the will of the people. John quincy adams made it his job to protect the right of the petition for women, free blacks, and here is a surprising one, slaves, and of course antislavery activists whod been blasted by president jackson as the incendiaries. Through the clever maneuvers, his forcing of the house to get a slavery despite having passed the gag rule that made a big taboo topic. Representatives should be accountable to their constituents. Democracy, there is no term of this in any history book. Maybe there should be. John quincy adams was no as old man eloquent. But he didnt win victories in the house with a silver tongue. He was scrappy. He provoked his Congressional Colleagues into hysterics to expose the unsavory and deeply undemocratic character of their beliefs. One arch enemy, henry of virginia, nearly 40 years his junior, called him the hissing serpent, which despite its nastiness, did in fact capture his cat and mouse approach, so its more and mouse than a snake. One of John Quincy Adams was greatest performances came when he introduced the petition from a group of slaves, which led the southern colleagues to explode with calls to expel him. Waiting patiently until the fuming dissipated and they drafted language to officially venture him. He revealed that the petition was not a call to end slavery, but to preserve it. It was a hoax, and the joke was on his colleagues. But then adams took it further. He made them even angrier when he proceeded to the legitimate defense of the right of slaves to petition congress. He said of sending the southern member of the house was no reason to silence the representative or refused to hear the petition. He reminded his colleagues that the south consisted of more than bastards. How could one favored class, and that is his word, the master class, supersede the rights of everyone else . The gag rule, gagging the discussion of slavery, with a great departure from american justice. Jacksonian democrats were curtailing democracy instead of promoting it. As i offer some concluding remarks, i will be a little contentious. They criticize democracy, that is their legacy. And what would be this understanding of todays political, obviously they would see money and politics as oppressive because it rejects the principle of balance and defeats the interest of the American Population as a whole. They hated nothing so much as the money warding power over the rest of us. That the wealthy receive special favors under the law, that the highly paid lobbyists write the legislation. They would classify this as the marks of oligarchy. This is the evidence with which the book finds an abundance in the adams writings, but even some professional historians would overlook or dont want to see. New interpretations always meet resistance. Those predisposed to write off the adams would want to make us defenders of the adams. Making excuses for two loser president s. We are just hardworking historians, trying to overcome bad synthetic histories. What would they say about the internet as democratic space . That its a place that doesnt privilege educated opinion . In cyberspace, if all opinion doesnt equal the sensational, then [inaudible] they didnt foresee the internet obviously, but they did was he democracy run amok. That is, irrational behavior spurred with that information with or without russian interference. Freeforall democracy was, is a mess, but you dont jettison it altogether. The fact is, through the lens, every form of government is inherently prone to corruption. Corruption is avoided only by a maintaining a balance of the vested interests interest, espey overcoming imbalances in wealth. To avoid spurring class into their resentments, but the commentators typically describe his identity politics. And then there is this challenge, the credulous or gullible voter response if they fear tactics. John adams, John Quincy Adams, believed that the conduct of politics demanded moral courage. They lived their lives by these principles and did not seek popularity in the manner others did. They did not usher in the age of anything. They didnt go down in history as a significant president s come and get their ideas largely married until now, were profound and remain profoundly meaningful today. The problem with democracy is this colonco we clutch on to the ethics that sounds beautiful, to the principles near impossible to uphold, to the egalitarian social relations nonexistent it never intended by the founders of the nation. The combined legacy of the president s adams cannot be summed up easily. It may be useful to think of them as antiheroes. They were vain, too honest to be beloved when they voiced truth most americans didnt want to hear. They challenged the myths that we had about democracy. They mistrusted human passions. But they also believed in analyzing problems to deal the constructive change. They were, let us say, i was asked with the desire to unmask deception. I liken them to sherlock holmes. More [inaudible] dan benedict. Because the truth for them existed in the subtle details. Simo[phone ringing] [laughter] they wore different intellectual hats as historians, satirists, constitutionalists, cosmopolitan wanderers, and also new england provincials. They shared the skepticism of the trained historians, plus the concern with human psychology. That led them to conclude that it was the duty of the government to check the worst excesses of powerhungry factions. Furthermore, and this is something that we bring out in our book, they both loved fiction. Its a common sensibility and its tragic death. Like the study of history, literature brought out the human condition better than abstract ideas. They didnt believe that it was inevitable or irreversible. The wines we have all heard before, that if ours is a government of the law, not of men, is in fact john adams why go through the 17th century political theories of james harrington. This phrase perfectly captures the view of the personality as a real and present danger. Anyone set up as a celebrity is in completely drawn or even worse, a mirage. Only institutions can safeguard justices and democracy. Only rules, principles and fair proceedings can be trusted. It promotes men of the people as flawless leaders. The two adams favorite comic novel plot relied on the power of impersonation. A clever servant borrows his masters clothing to facilitate this intrigues. He mocks and upends social norms. Satire come as we know from watching latenight tv, really exposes counterfeit democracy. It brings National Figures down a notch. It reminds us that the cult of personality seduces voters as easily as the rogue antiheroes in the 18th century novel soldiers through Polite Society and fools everyone he meets. Lets be more dams and. Whats see behind the facade. And when necessary, unmask the motives. With the ingenious, not hostile, with the words. Resistance is not futile. Criticism within a healthy debate keeps democracy of life. Thank you very much. [applause] we were trying to be provocative. We will find out in the qanda if we succeeded. Cspan would like to bring you to approach the microphone in the center of the room in order to deliver your questions. Speak [inaudible] i did research and found out i was related to Patrick Henry [inaudible] why when you think of jefferson and the people that said things we revere more than mike the adams, they were the ones that in their living practices had slaves, but then the adams dont come off as well . The first problem with Patrick Henry is give me liberty or give me death, the one soundbite hes best known for may never have been delivered or at least his earliest and most influential biographer william ward in early centuries admitted the romantic truth was too important to him as a biographer to let it go. And so, in corresponding with Thomas Jefferson, who knew Patrick Henry and was one of the sources for the biography, jefferson came back to the biographer and said you know henry was in fact i wont go into it because this is about the adams but a long train of abuses, despite the declaration of independence. [laughter] why romanticize those people . I would like to raise the issue about slavery because i also wrote a biographer on aaron burr, and as you probably have seen the musical hamilton, the fact that hamilton was someone who purchased slaves and owned slaves, and this is part of the problem. Part of the problem is we do have the founders that gets worshiped and it makes them into something that reflects what we are rather than what they are. But it is true i think that this is a striking issue for today. That john adams and John Quincy Adams were people who were not slave owners and we know not only were they not slave owners, john adams did not come from a wealthy background. As compared to the virginia dynasty. But this is part of the legacy that we have. Its often what happens in history and what happens with john adams is that your enemy often gets to define who you are and often gets to put a label on you. And the fact that john adams was targeted during the vice presidency, attacked for being a defender markey, attacked for his writings and in a very superficial fashion. This went on, and unfortunately come even good historians have liked to set up the contrast between the idealized jeffersonian democracy and a backward looking conservative adams political position. And it becomes tricky because even though adams is elected as a federalist, he is vastly different from Alexander Hamilton. There is a great dinner break. They are not in agreement acrosstheboard. They are very inaccurate. The you are right, we should pay more attention to the fact that the adams need to be revisited for understanding. Abigail adams was horrified by the fact, not only slavery existed, which she wrote to john about in the american revolution, but she understood that the slave masters take took advantage of slave women. And that is something that also she passed on to John Quincy Adams. Thank you. Is the cult of personality as important as you say, and how were they elected [inaudible] 1776 John Quincy Adams because the house of representatives, do things change in the four years he was president . Did adams suddenly become Something Different . If i agree with you the personality is so important, im having trouble deciding. First the popular vote didnt matter, so we cannot make the direct correlation between that and now. John adams lost narrowly to Thomas Jefferson and beat jefferson in 1796 i 1796 and tht contested election narrowly also. This is largely a factor of what is later described as a sectional divide. Adams was contentious but he wasnt as contentious as Alexander Hamilton. Adams had attained his reputation through his service in europe as a diplomat for many years. And so caller as Vice President he may have been looked upon as his rotunda they are mocked by some, he maintained a sturdy reputation in the northern states. It was a very close election, but it was largely decided on the basis of geography. The other thing that changes is the increasing role of the party competition. You have to realize that according to the constitution, it doesnt recognize party. And they should have anticipated the party, because this is in Great Britain but they did. So what happens is during washingtons administration, you get the rise of what is known as the antiadministration movement, and then eventually that ends up being a the party of madison and jefferson. And what comes with the parties is what i refer to as highly developed by the time jackson is ready. The art of party organization, or jacksons period, rewarding people with offices. So, even if you think about washington is not being contested. You had the emergence of the antiadministration party, and that means things that we now accept as part of cultivating and talking about personalities and using them in campaigns. The major vehicle for that is the rise of the partisan newspapers, and i that is just beginning to take shape. And it comes to sort of form in 1800. So that is when you see the average voter is not going to know john adams personally. Hes going to get a portrait of john adams about what is being repeated and what is going to be found in the very partisan newspapers. So thats where the personality begins to take a much more Important Role in elections. [inaudible] he wasnt really a politician other than he conducted his politics through letterwriting. And some of these letters were intentionally, although kept his private letters, were intentionally being directed to someone who was going to publish them in the newspapers. So, in many ways, the vocabulary that we use cannot directly apply. Parties themselves, not only did the constitution not reckoned with the inevitability of the twoparty system, but they refer to the spirit of party as a negative. The spirit of the party meant faction or factionalism, so nobody wanted to be identified with the party. At best, they would refer to themselves as an interest, the federalist interest, the democratic interest, and the word democracy initially was rejected because it was associated with french revolutionary excesses of democracy. And it wasnt until the 19th century that even the term democracy is to be identified as a democrat was no longer pejorative, but something that we embraced as a people. It all happened over time. Although i would say that jefferson was a bitter at becoming a head of the party and better at surrounding himself with supporters, better at, whereas john and John Quincy Adams were much more negative about taking on that role and the fact that basically john adams when he is president , hes fighting against Alexander Hamilton, who is taking on that role of being the head of the party. So, i think that there are personal differences and this title in the way in which they think of using power. And this is something jefferson was more than capable of doing behind the scenes. And this is one of the reasons john adams gets criticized, because he doesnt take on that role being the head of the party. But to him, this was kind of the root of the undermining of the government. For the executives to take on that kind of party head or Party Leadership role. Also understanding these questions in the context, in historical context, we drew upon extensively the diaries and letters that the Massachusetts Historical Society owned. The adams were beautiful recordkeepers. Not only did they retain so many books and diaries and letters for prosperity, and john and john quincy communicated about issues political, partisan in ways that just opened this up to the present and future historians. Weve got all of this record to tap into the newspapers that are also available in digital editions online that can be readily searched. And so, the politics of early american conduct at the state level, at the local level, the national level, this is an ongoing enterprise that is so much fun for all of us involved in it. And reeducating ourselves in educating the rising generation, so that is just a shout out for the profession of history. You talk in your book about how much their understanding of democracy was informed by this study and analysis history, philosophy. Can you comment on something that is always compounding to me. Why did the generation of other men, unfortunately just then, but other men who also analyzed and studied politics and democracy and philosophy so misrepresent or so misunderstand what they were talking about and what they were getting at, and in particular i know youve written and studied James Madison, who his whole life expresses nothing but contempt for john adams and his understanding in his intellect. If you have any thoughts about how, in particular in the generation they lived in, they were so misunderstood or misrepresented. It goes both ways. One of the reasons madison is interesting, because all the way back when john adams is a diplomat, the factions begin to form coming into this kind of pro franklin faction in the pro adams action. And like everything else, information circulated. So, i teach a class called american founding myths, and they show how these quotes get repeated and go from madison to jefferson and how ones identity gets warped, and i think whats interesting that i would like to add about madison is up by the time he is president , he changes his mind. One of the reasons i like medicine is because he does change his mind, he changes about john adams and he writes a supporting letter when hes having his difficulties with a triple presidency because of the war of 1812. And on top of that john f. Kennedys profiles and rich features John Quincy Adams because he abandons the party of his father as it were, the federalist party. And joined with jefferson and madison. Madison was the secretary of state for jefferson. Because at the National Come as a patriot, he was above party. He felt that he knew that he was going to lose his seat in the u. S. Senate for massachusetts by caucusing with the madisonians. And he did so nonetheless because of principle. His father was wholeheartedly behind him in making that political shift. John adams for dave Thomas Jefferson. They have more than a decade of postpresident ial correspondence. Madison deeply respected John Quincy Adams. So, theres no simple answer. Their ideas, their opinions and personal hatred change over time, and we see that a lot. I just wanted to add one other thing. We dont want to sugarcoat john adams either. He rubbed people the wrong way, and we included that in our book. Because one of the things thats important for understanding the founding generation coming into the generation of John Quincy Adams, is to get the full picture. These are human beings. There are elements to their personality that we today might have trouble with, and they are not always perfect and they say the wrong things. So, i think the key thing is that part of the reason his ideas get distorted is again, for the party advantage. As you know. When you look at politicians today or think about people who are nominated to the supreme court. Unless the less favorite in the more likely they are to be put on the court, because there isnt tons of paper and documentation that then can be selectively used against them. And this is one of the things that happens with john adams because he published a really large book called the defense of the constitutions of the United States, and then he published these other materials that were mined for selective, quote, to be used against him. Over the last couple of years, i have had occasions to reflect on john adams remarks upon taking up residency in the white house. [inaudible] in that regard, do you take up at any point in the book the moment at which president adams which seems to have failed him and he acquiesced to the pressure and signed the sedition act into law . That was a very subtle way of getting it. [laughter] we are not sugar coating the alien insertion act. The undermining of the first amendment. If one were to rationalize why john adams he didnt initiate it, but he embraced it. But to understand it in context, the french revolution had an impact on the American National consciousness, somewhat akin to the power of americas reaction after 9 11. And so, there was a fear among federalists, among moderate federalists as well as the socalled five that the french revolution style terrorism and they use the word terrorism would reach american shores. And so, it was out of that extreme fear that they were regarded as untrustworthy and a president could remove them from american shores, send them home. There were newspaper men who were irish, scottish by birth who came here and shook things up. Prior to that, even president George Washington in his less glorious second term went along with Alexander Hamilton and the idea of the whiskey rebellion in western pennsylvania at the head of an army that was as large, if not larger than what washington commanded during the revolution. Only to find that there was that whatever resistance there was disappeared into the forest. And there was no real reason for any of this. So, thats the context in which we can look at the factious 1790s and what led to adams embrace, the ill considered alien and sedition act. This is a problem when you look at the presidency is. None of the earlier president s can be looked at as having perfect presidencies. And that is true even for Thomas Jefferson. He has a better first term than second term, he supports the embargo, this is a bad decision, one supported by madison. As i said, he has a similar problem in that adams inherited the cabinet from washington, and these are people who were not really supportive of him. They were getting their directives from hamilton, and surprisingly, James Madison by the time hes president is also putting people in his cabinet but hes constantly having to replace. To think about engaging in a war with france and a series of diplomatic failures and then the diplomats come home. John adams goes along with it but then they pulled back and decides the members of his cabinet that has been listening to hamilton and takes the action to find a diplomatic solution as opposed to going to war. Now this is in a serious way the election of 1800 because guess who . Alexander hamilton circulates the pamphlet secretly and then he has to admit he is actually trying to undermine john adams reelection. So being a president is complicated in no way do they want to say john adams didnt make that crucial fundamental mistakes but also needs to be put into context that you have to compare the presidency to early president s because nobody is perfect and infallible. And the belief to be uneducated and irrational seems to be at odds with a more realistic psychological insight that people could be credulous and personality driven. This seems to be a contradiction but is it indicative that democracies will only ever be and ideal or a cover story for the oligarchy . Good question. Yes. One of the things and this is another point i like to make. You probably know john adams helped draft the first constitution of massachusetts public support for Public Education which did not make it into the virginia constitution. Jefferson started a small plan to get a few to be educated and the virginia elite challenged him so he did care about education and believed he needed public support and funding for education. But the contradictions are there because going back to what was said about the instability of government that you cant just assume that you write a constitution and you put a government in place to magically solve these problems. I think thats why they felt and the way they position themselves as politicians to unmask those superstitions that when somebody says something is a distraction or hyperbole versus getting at the truth and i really do believe the importance of law and constitution and rules. You have to find a way to educate people. Not just the Common People but the elites were in real danger they must they could be the real educated so you have to check that class power but that was inevitable so if you put 100 men in a room in a very short time and gathered all the power to themselves because ambition is not pure. Thats where they put faith in the constitution to check the accesses because of the potential of education but you have to start just like the town meeting at a very early age of infancy to learn how to argue in a town meeting. The fighting wasnt there. As early as washingtons presidency there was the desire among many citizens to have a National University established even Thomas Jefferson founding the university of virginia convince the legislators to the value of having wealthy citizens support institutions of higher learning. And John Quincy Adams finally when he came to the presidency was hellbent on funding Public Education and infrastructure and roads and making a more Dynamic National government. And waging money for Public Education is something was more than it did in the south. In your discoveries with the problems of democracy the divine right of authority of european leaders or any leader had you encountered any way in which those spiritual qualities and that type of clarity this is gods will for this nation, has that showed itself . When john adams and jefferson both die on the fourth of july, it was widely considered to be providential that washington was sent heavenward on the wings of angels. Jesus his body with washingtons head on it. [laughter] so that quasi religiosity even before the revolution the literature that proclaimed the new world with jerusalem. So a lot was already cast in a religiosity not being attributed beyond gods providence. And some of that correspondence to engage to answer some of the questions. So it was part of their communion, their uncensored and open and loving correspondence over the years but beyond that, it could be hard to say. There is a current argument that it was established as a christian nation and if you look closely at the founders , they are very careful not to put religion in the constitution and very careful in the sense not that idea but something that has become popular recently with that faction of religion to claim the founders as their own and as we know jefferson is very much in support of separation of church and state but adams was so open he went around to attend different congregations to see what is going on in there because he saw a religion as another part to understand human psychology because he was deeply concerned again about how people can be manipulated and clearly when he critiques the cult of washington he is responding to the dangerous tendency to make washington something into much bigger like every other founder is human. If you are interested in pursuing John Quincy Adams religious life there is a new book called household gods and i recommend that to you. [applause] thank you. [inaudible conversations] its about consumers and the problems they face and Consumer Finance and the new Consumer Protection bureau and the importance of the work to protect people across america. The another one United States dont do everything that they can to protect ourselves against the efforts of the Chinese Communist party to subvert the free Economic System with a democratic form of government. The fact that most people leave prison to see we could be closing them already if we just cut by two weeks or three weeks or four weeks the kind of sentences they are serving