Transcripts For CSPAN3 George Washington The Constitution 20240713

Pleasure to put on my constitutional reading glasses you can tell i am not actually outside because i have to put them on before i do the introduction and introduce our wonderful guests tonight. Lindsay chervinsky is a white house historian at the White House Historical association. She is the author of the new book the cabinet George Washington and the creation of an american institution. She is widely published. I had the great pleasure of introducing her recently on a podcast, and i cannot wait to share her work and her insights with you. Lindsay, welcome to americas town hall. Lindsay thank you so much for having me. Jeffrey and edward larson, the hugh and hazel darling chair of law at pepperdine university. He is a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize in history. He is the coauthor of 14 books, several of them on George Washington and the founders, and his newest book is franklin and washington the founding partnership. It is wonderful to welcome you back to the National Constitution center. Edward thank you so much for having me back, even if only virtually. Jeffrey it is just great. I am so eager to learn from both of you and with both of you, in the spirit of louis brandeis. Come, let us reason together. Let the learning begin. Let us begin with you, because you have this powerful pairing of the two founders you consider the first among the founders, washington and franklin. You notice they are labeled first and second in the most famous portrait of the Constitutional Convention and are often considered foremost by their contemporaries. You developed so many parallels among them, including their shared support for strong Central Government. The friendship they cultivated during the battles of the french and indian war and their opposition to the stamp acts and during the colonial era and the Constitutional Convention, you also noted a shared quality in both of their characters. That is their devotion to a roman, almost stoic conception of virtue. Both said in different ways that a government cannot succeed without a virtuous people who believe that happiness is impossible without virtue, and virtue is necessary for a successful government. And they got that from stoic sources, pythagoras golden rule, and franklin was an avid reader of socrates. Washingtons favorite play was cato, which he read to the troops at valley forge. The stoic concept of virtue is not familiar to our modern eras. Tell us how washington and franklin understood virtue, and why they believed it was crucial to the success of republican government . Edward first, we must realize that at the time, a continental republic was literally something new under the sun. That was the motto, something new under the sun. There wasnt any examples of an effective continental republic. And there were very few republics. Maybe in switzerland, maybe venice. There wasnt very much going on. But they could look back to ancient rome before the empire and see a republic. And they looked, they studied both men, you have to realize and remember, both were selfmade men. By the time of their death, certainly by the time of their prime, they were literally the most famous americans and the most respected americans both here and throughout the world. They had come up, especially franklin, from literally nothing, from being an indentured servant, a refugee to philadelphia, to become one of the wealthiest men in philadelphia. A true success. Washington is the same sort of success story. He was not born into everything. He inherited some, but he worked hard. And they were creating something new, and they looked over to europe and they saw a few leaders. And franklin knew a lot of those personally because he had spent time in europe, and he realized they were decadent and he looked at the people and the people were like sheep. They wanted to create something new. They were both children of the enlightenment and they wanted to create this new thing. They wanted to create a government of the people. That is what washington wrote in the draft, a government of the people. Lincoln later borrowed it, but that was from washington. And to do that and that is what franklin dreamed about, too. To do that, they believed they needed both republican virtue, as they called it, republican virtues in the people, and republican virtue in the leaders because they feared a demagogue. A person like a Patrick Henry would be their example. They feared that. They knew that aaron burr would be a later example. They feared what that would do to a country. But they also knew that people needed virtue. That is why they supported public education. Think of what franklin did to motivate public education. They knew they needed virtuous people. When they left the Constitutional Convention, on the last day of the Constitutional Convention in philadelphia, franklin gave a magnificent closing speech. In it, he said, this is not perfect. This will not last forever. He said, about the constitution. But it is the best we can have now. But this government, if the people lose virtue, it will lead to tyranny like every other type of government. In one of his first letter is after he left philadelphia, George Washington wrote much the same thing to his nephew who would later become a member of the supreme court, that this constitution will only work as long as the people have virtue and the leaders have virtue. That is what they brought to government. That is what they brought to the vision, that is what they brought to what they were trying to create. They knew how fragile a republic was. Jeffrey thank you so much for that. Lindsay, tell us more about that powerful statement that both franklin and washington believed that the republic would falter unless the people and the leaders have virtue. How did washington believe that people should cultivate the habits of virtue . Franklin famously proposed 13 virtues that all of us should follow every day, from temperance to patience from humility. He got it from pythagoras golden virtue. He said we should put checkmarks by them. I tried it. It is quite sobering to see, actually. [laughter] but washington had circulated, although he did not write it, the famous rules for civility. It talked about how to conduct yourself. Obviously he cared a lot about this, too. What were the classical sources that inspired washington, and how did he believe people should cultivate virtue . The habits of virtue . Lindsay sure. Well, washington had a deep conviction that no person was ever fully formed, so there needed to be a constant effort to improve yourself, to improve your education, to try and master your flaws. And to really see yourself as an ever evolving person. He certainly tried to live up to these standards through selfeducation. He was an avid reader. Constantly consuming news and trying to learn new things in a variety of different fields. War, science, agriculture. He really enjoyed the theater, so he took in culture and fiction when it was recommended to him, high quality fiction like don quixote. He was trying to improve who he was from an ideological perspective, but also master what he knew to be his own shortcomings. His temper, of course, is one of his most famous examples. He worked really hard to keep his natural temper in check, with mixed results sometimes. He learned to not make rash decisions. He learned to consult with people who had more knowledge than he did. He learned to be solicitous of those in the civil government and not speak rashly to people who were his superiors. There were things he had to cultivate over a period of time, learned from his mistakes, and then tried to bring that knowledge into his next position. He believed firmly that all they wereed to not necessarily going to meet standards, but everybody needed to try to continue to better themselves as a nation, as a state, as a citizen, and a republic required that sort of dedication because they had seen countless examples that power was so easy to corrupt. And it was so easy to go overboard. So you needed to have citizens that were constantly trying to better themselves and were trying to suss out their own weaknesses in order to maintain a republic. Jeffrey thanks for all that. Give us a sense about whether washingtons exhortations to virtue, which he included in his farewell address, distinguished him from madison, who was more determined to have constitutional checks that would ensure a successful government even if men were not angels. Then give us a sense of the central defining moments in washingtons character leading up to the presidency. You talk about several important periods where he and franklin worked together in their opposition to the intolerable acts and stamp acts, their service on the war counsel. Their service on the constitutional congress. Highlight a few of those and described their affect on washingtons character. Edward highlighting what lindsay just said, while she was talking i dont know if anybody could see it, but i walked back to the shelf behind me and pulled down the only book washington ever wrote. It wasnt a book then, but the rules of civility that she mentioned. At the age of 14, washington did not have great expectations. He was the third son. Back when everything was inherited by the first son. Mount vernon was going to go to the first son. Not only was he the third son, he was the son by the second wife. So he thought he would have to make his own way. That is why he learned to survey, went out on the frontier, and franklin believed thought the future would lie and franklin believed the same thing. They both believed what made America Special and different from europe is there was a frontier, that people would not be trapped and controlled by a few landowners. They could go on to the frontier, they could make their own way, they could make their own fortune. Franklin did that by experience, by leaving boston where he was trapped as an indentured servant, and making his own way. Washington too went to the frontier and began surveying land. That is the time he wrote down these maxims, and he borrowed them from a french maxim, and he wrote them down by hand. The first one is every action done in company ought to be with the same sign of respect to those that are present. Respect, that was a key one. That was number one. It goes on with all the rest. Both viewed the future as the frontier. Washington went there and learned lessons on the frontier, just as franklin did. They were in two separate colonies. By the time the french and indian war comes, franklin had already made his fortune and he moved into public service. He had been elected to the colonial legislature, and he had become the leader by sheer hard work, ability, and brilliance. He had become the leader of the opposition, the nonquaker government. Meanwhile, washington, both of his brothers had died. He inherited mount vernon, and he also inherited the leadership of the virginia militia. When the french and indian war came, the quakers had to leave the government of pennsylvania because they could not fight. And franklin became the effective governor, and was given the authority to create a militia. Because what had happened is the french and indian war was fought over what is called the forks of the ohio country, which then was western pennsylvania. The french had moved in there and built a fort there, and invaded what pennsylvania considered their own land, but also virginia did because their boundary was supposed to be going west. The Potomac River going west. It resulted in both virginia and pennsylvania claimed what is now pittsburgh while the french were there. So the french were attacking settlers, from both pennsylvania and virginia. Franklin had to go west, leading the troops. He turns out to be really good at it. To build a line of forts and defend pennsylvania. Washington has to go west, ahead of the militia, and defend what is now western pennsylvania. So they started to Work Together. Both worked with brad acklin. Both worked with braddock. Both warned him, dont do it. These native americans will cut you to slices, which they did. Famously, braddock said back to franklin, they may cut your poor colonial militia to slices, but they will not know how to beat the british army. They did, including braddock, who washington carried back and buried under the road traveled by franklins wagons. You have the two people working together then. They realized we can only win by working together. These colonies cant work independent. They have to Work Together. They also learned that you cannot trust the british. They dont care about us, they only care about themselves. So after the war, they drew a proclamation line and said you cannot settle in the west. This is what sets franklin and washington off because they thought public virtue would come by people having economic freedom, Economic Opportunity, political freedom, political opportunity, and that was the frontier. If you lose that, you lose what makes America Special. So right from the get go, they had fought for that. They thought we needed to unify. These colonies could not do it alone. So they learned together in the french and indian war the need for americans to band together. That is when franklin drew his famous cartoon, the First Political cartoon ever drawn in america, unite or die with the rattlesnake cut into pieces. This is interesting. It was published in his paper, the pennsylvania gazette, the First Political cartoon drawn in america. If you look at the picture, what surrounds it is washingtons account of his trip west to fight the french. They are all together. So they continue to bring that knowledge that we need. Unity, we need people with Economic Opportunity and political freedom. We need virtue. And they brought all that to the revolutionary war, where washington led the troops. They were indispensable americans. Franklin proposed that he lead the troops. And franklin oversaw the work committees until he was sent to france. Then he oversaw the alliance with france. He orchestrated it, he brought it about. Then he orchestrated sending the troops. He had to work washington work with washington to know, where is the french navy needed . Where is the french army needed . Yorktown would not have happened if he had not arranged for the french navy and army, and washington brought down the american army, to capture cornwallis at yorktown. They worked hand in glove so after the revolution, after franklin comes back, he is elected governor of pennsylvania. Three terms. He is almost 80. He is older than joe biden and he gets elected back then when people lived shorter times, and he gets elected governor. And he is fabulous at the job. The state was in trouble before him. He knows how to make it work. Then of course, washington from mount vernon, franklin from his seat as governor of pennsylvania, pushed for a Constitutional Convention because they saw america collapsing without unity, without unified commerce, without a Central Government controlling the western frontier. That was so important to both of them because until you had a Central Government with the ability to raise troops and to raise funds and to project our armies, open up the frontier, what was happening was no state had an interest in protecting the frontier, and the native americans were moving back. They had retaken the forks of the ohio, they had retaken two thirds of georgia. It was these needs of opening the frontier, of maintaining the frontier, of having a Central Government maintain foreign controlled over Foreign Policy and a Central Government able to raise taxes and spend money for the common welfare, and also control interstate commerce. Franklin and washington, because they both had run businesses that crossed state lines, they knew that was essential to create a place where there would be a growing economy, which was central to the peoples virtue, and protect critical freedom and not have individual states go off on tangents like rhode island and georgia. This is what they brought together and what drew them together to philadelphia. When George Washington comes to philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention, the very first place he goes after dropping off his bags at Robert Morriss house was to visit franklin. They sat down under that Mulberry Tree in front of his house and discussed what they needed to do to make a more perfect union. Jeffrey that is great. You have given us so much to think about, taking them from the french and indian war all the way to the Constitutional Convention. You begin your book by discarding that scene of describing the scene of washington deciding not to drive up to franklins house because that is where he was in company accompanied by enslaved people. Franklin did not approve of slavery at that point. Washington did. You take all those experiences shared devotion to a strong Central Government, strong commerce power to keep the west open and ensure theomic independence and people promoting virtue. Lindsay, i would love you to give us your insights on that broad period from your remarkable and helpful perspective. You can take us through the same period. Edward didnt talk as much about the revolutionary war and exactly how franklin and washington joined together on the war counsel. Focusing on washington, bring us through the Constitutional Convention, and in your view, what were the central experiences that shaped his devotion to strong central federal power and senate virtue . Civic virtue . Lindsay washington has to be understood as someone who has a military mindset. Until the presidency most of his leadership was in a military capacity. He sat in the house of burgesses, but he was not known for his oral speaking abilities. He would frequently sit back and listen to other people. Where he really took charge was on the battlefield. That really shaped who he was, because he spent eight years in the army and he only went home to mount vernon once. It was on the way to yorktown. He was with the army every day except for when Congress Called him to wherever they happened to be working at the moment for an update. He saw day in and day out the lack of food, the lack of shoes. When they say people had bloody feet, that was not an exaggeration. The lack of materials, the lack of food for horses, the lack of ammunition. He felt very strongly, and this was a direct quote, that they were expecting him to build bricks without straw. He became convinced that there whether it be fighting a war or leading a nation, there needed to be a strong central authority. He writes a letter at the end of the war to the different governors of each state, basically saying we need to Work Together to try to improve the strong central authority. It needs to be centralized. We cannot be having these ad hoc committees. We cant be having six People Holding this authority. It doesnt work. People tend to argue. I think he really had that deep conviction through the end of the war and it was his time during the confederation, after the war, the in between periods where he becomes convinced that congress is not the right body to hold that authority because they tend to bicker, congressman come and go, there is a lack of institutional knowledge. A committee has a difficult time making a decision because one person can move more quickly and more efficiently and the economy is in shambles, diplomacy is a mess because the western regions have different goals than new england and the southern regions. They all want different things. They are bickering over defense expenses because eastern regions feel like western settlers are provoking conflicts with native americans and they dont want to have to pay for it. By the end of 1787, sections are threatening to secede and form their own nation. This terrifies washington because he had just spent eight years trying to ensure there would be one nation, not six, or however many sections there might be. He becomes convinced that the executive is the best place to have energetic authority. When i say energetic, i mean someone who can make a decision, then pursue policy and implement that quickly and strategically and with authority. He feels Like Congress is not wellequipped to act in that way. By the time he gets to the Constitutional Convention, he very much believes there needs to be a strong executive. He was a very astute political mind. He understood that was going to be him, which is one of the reasons i think he was procrastinating about going to the convention and was reluctant to go initially, and new what he was coming once he was there, if it was going to be successful and there was going to be a single executive, he and everyone else there knew it would be him. But he believed that he alone could fill that position because i would argue he was the most famous man in the world. Edward may want to disagree with me about franklin. But i would argue that washington was the most famous man in the world. He was younger than franklin, so he was better equipped to lead the nation in this way. He was one of the few people who could bring the states together. He felt a sense of purpose and duty. Not because he wanted to be president. I dont think he did. I think he felt like he had to be or else the nation wouldnt work. Jeffrey thanks for that, and for noting his reluctance to attend the convention, but as you noted, if he were not there, the thing would not have succeeded. It was his actual presence, and knowledge that he would serve as the first president , that created the unity necessary to ensure the conventions success. Talk about franklin and washingtons contributions to the convention. They did not say much. Washington hardly spoke, franklin famously said at the end, i always wondered if the chair was a rising or setting sun, now i think it is rising. Franklin had a greater role behind the scenes, especially helping broker the connecticut compromise between the large states and small states. But focusing on washington in particular, because he is our simple hero here, what were his constitutional contributions to the convention . Edward i agree very much with how lindsay set it up. He believed in a strong executive. A democratically elected executive. One who would serve with terms that would be limited. But he did believe in the need for a strong executive. One of the two places where franklin disagreed with him, franklin had written the constitutional the constitution of pennsylvania, which has a week executive and a strong legislature. But when franklin was governor, he made it work because everybody listened to him. That was the situation we have going into the convention. You have these two, and i agree with lindsay that washington was one of the most famous people in the world. I believe that he and franklin were coequal that respect. They both were the two universally respected people in america. If you read every argument for ratification, it does not matter if it was virginia. Or georgia or new hampshire. They all said franklin and washington gave us this, washington and franklin gave us this, we have to ratify it. They were the two people who were essential to making it work. They agreed on the big things. They agreed on a strong Central Government. They agreed on the Central Government having the power over interstate commerce because they did not want the states fighting with each other over commerce. They agreed on the Central Government having power over the military and diplomacy and the frontier. All the big things they agreed on. And they did differ. What franklin said, he said quite a bit at the convention, but both of them were so committed to this working that both washington and franklin were constantly having meetings, meeting with people at their homes or where washington was staying, they were both brokering compromises because essential to their character, both of them believed in compromise. Both of them believed you dont compromise on principle, but we compromise on need. On means. As lindsay said, washington was not a great public speaker. Neither was franklin. They both listened more than they spoke. They both loved to give credit to others rather than take all the credit themselves. Both were famous about that. Both wrote it down as virtues of sharing credit, working like a team. They believed in collegiality. That is why franklin worked in the council and washington won wanted the cabinet. This was their character. They did disagree strongly on how much power the president would have because franklin feared that if you give too much power to any one branch or any one person, that person will become a tyrant. So he joins with a couple other key leaders, one man from massachusetts, randolph from virginia, george mason of virginia. The four of them were constantly arguing for a weaker presidency. They pushed for and franklin got things like the power of impeachment, because he thought that was essential. They pushed for term limits and all sorts of things like this, but they did not get it all. The other three and this was important the other three voted no. Mason voted no, randolph voted no. It was only washingtons vote that had virginia support the constitution because it was 32 because they both went the other way. And the other man voted no. But franklin, and that famous last speech, which surprises people, says im voting yes because this is better than what we have now. What we have now is going to lead to chaos, collapse, and destruction. And i believe this government will be led well as long because we know who the first person is. And as long as washingtons president , this is going to be fine because he has good virtue. But this could lead to tear money this will lead to tyranny under some other precedent president. But we need washington to set the standard, set the term, set the precedent that will lead us forward. So franklin has so much faith in washington as a leader, even though they disagreed on slavery, had so much belief in washingtons virtue that he supported the constitution. And without his support, and the convention ise sacred. The only things that leak from the convention are franklins last speech, arguing why even a person who questions this should support it. And washingtons transmittal letter. So when people read the constitution, they read it together with washingtons powerful transmittal letter and franklins final closing speech. They knew those two things leaked, and they leaked for a reason. Jeffrey thanks for all that, and how interesting to learn in your account of the fact that franklin did side with the antifederalists, who refused to sign the constitution when randolph and mason and gary, as ive learned to pronounce it, and it was washingtons support for a strong presidency at the final stages of the convention at the expense of the senate, that laid the foundations for the modern presidency, as he put as you put it, by throwing in his lock with hamilton, wilson, and the others, supporters of a strong executive. How important to note, and you do, that washingtons transmittal letters was so central and during ratification, his support in virginia was crucial, as well. He declared an aggregate, that this was the best constitution and congress were indispensably to form government. That brings us up to the presidency of washington and the subject of your important new book. And in your book, you argue that the constitution itself does not establish us president ial does not establish a president ial candidate. In fact, the delegates specifically rejected the idea. Tell us how and why washington created one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government, why he waited two and a half years to call a cabinet, and what the models for his cabinet were getting dating back to his service in the councils of war. Lindsay sure, so, as you noted, the word cabinet doesnt actually exist in the constitution. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention definitely debated this concept. They knew that a president needed advice. No president ever leads alone, so they knew there needed to be people to provide support and assistance but they were very worried about a cabinet, because they had just come from declaring independence from great britain, and they felt that sort of counsel would lead to corruption. It would lead to cronyism. It hid transparency at the highest levels of government, so it kind of obscured who is responsible for each decision, and they really didnt want to implement that sort of system into the new government, and so they put in place two different alternatives. One, the president could request written advice from secretaries. These provisions are in article two, section two of the constitution. The president could request written advice on matters pertaining to their department. And this was crafted very carefully because it demonstrates their desire to have basically a paper trail, a chain of evidence about what people were advising to president s and who is saying what and who was advocating for each position. And if the opinions are all written then you have the documentation. And they also wanted advisors to stick to their area of expertise. They didnt want advisors about bloviating about every single topic. Instead, they wanted their president to be getting details, detailed, concise, wellestablished advice from people who had experience in these areas. The second option that they gave was the senate. And unlike today, where the senate sort of serves as a rubberstamp on treaties or appointments, or rejects them out of hand, the senate was intended to be basically a council on Foreign Affairs and provide advice to the president when he was considering issues of diplomacy. Now, of course, the senate was much smaller at the time, so its not 100 people trying to provide advice. But that was really their expectation because the senate was indirectly elected. So it was at least somewhat responsible to states. It could be held accountable for the advice they were giving. And so when washington went into the presidency, he had said he was there every day. He was socializing with all of the other delegates. He was having tea and going to the theater and the sting to listening to music. So he had a very clear expectation of what they had decided about the advisors. He had been listening. And so he had went into the presidency attempting to really follow these rules. And he visits with the senate in august of 1789, and it goes very badly because the senate was acting like the legislative body. They wanted to deliberate. They wanted to talk about it in committee. An washington was a military man. He wanted that official advice. That it efficient advice. He wanted answers right away. So just a couple of months into his presidency, all of a sudden this option isnt really working for him and he decides hes not going to go back to the senate to request advice. And he quickly discovers that written advice isnt really effective either because today, when were exchanging emails with people, sometimes well have another question and well forget we wanted to ask it and so we will send another email. Or maybe tone is and properly conveyed. Imagine trying to do that with parchment and quell. It takes a long time to write the letter, let it dry, have it delivered, and then they have to write the response. And these are serious matters of state and there are complicated issues, and washington was frustrated that letters were moving too slowly. So he starts having hell exchange a letter, and then hell start inviting his secretaries over to have them some followup discussion, and did that for about two and a half years. The first Cabinet Meeting didnt take place until november 26, 1791, so 2. 5 years into washingtons administration, which is really important because it shows it wasnt there from day one or wasnt what anyone really expected. Really drew on his council of war experience to shape his interactions in the cabinet, because it was the leadership experience he knew and its what worked really well for him during the war. Jeffrey thank you for that. Its a important story. It has not been told before, and tying washingtons war service to this Crucial Institution he created during the presidency, which as you say, does not appear in the constitution, has illuminated us all. I think we have 20 questions in the q a box, and theyre so good. Time to start asking them. Lets try to get through as many as possible. Ill offer them to different ones of you. The very first question is professor larson, love your books. By the way, please remind us why president washington stepped down after just two terms. Edward it did set precedent. It reflects his virtue, his republican virtue. He believed that you took office by the college the people. And you rule by the call of the people. Now, it wasnt a strong presidency, but weve got to remember, mixed with that is the belief he served up a call of the people. He had done the same thing as a military leader. He vowed that when the revolution was over, he vowed at the beginning that he would step down. Oh, the opponents would say oh, look, the british said look, why are you changing one george for another . Now you are going to get king George Washington. Look at every rebel leader, cromwell, caesar. They all become dictators. Washington said no, im going to step down. That created the cincinnati us story from the roman leader in cincinnati who had stepped down after saving rome twice. Washington does it at the end of the revolution and is convinced he needs to do it again as president to not have the sense of a lifetime president , but rather this president is called out of the people to serve and then go back. Franklin thought the same way. He went out and back in and out. And that set that standard. And he believed everything he was doing was setting a precedent. Hamilton believed that. So did morris. So did the key advisors. He believed he was setting the precedent. And that precedent then lasted up until world war ii and Franklin Roosevelt. And as soon as Franklin Roosevelt broke it, then the states and Congress Passed an amendment. To enshrine it in the constitution, the washington way, two terms, thats it. Jeffrey thanks very much for that. There are several questions about virtue. Virtue may have been an aspiration for both franklin and washington, but they were sufficiently skeptical to wish to aspire to virtue and guard against device. Against vice. Would you agree . We also have a question about whether their conception of virtue and washington, in particular, in the lifelong quest for soap improvement selfimprovement, was grounded in religious faith or the enlightenment value of reason . Ill ask whether the stoic or classical value of reasons, part of it as well. And then, of course, theres a question about how franklin was more colorful in his personal life than washington. Whose personal life was beyond reproach. And how central was this virtue this conception of virtue to shaping this exemplary character . Lindsay, ill let you take all three of those about washington and franklin and virtue. Lindsay sure, lots of questions about virtue, which is great because i think thats something were seeing is a really important part of politics. We want our politicians to be virtuous, especially in times of crisis like were seeing today. I dont think washington was a particularly religious person. He had a deep sense there was some sort of providence. And it wasnt providence like god like we think of today. It was providence like a sense of fate, almost. But he had a conviction that he had a certain role that he was destined to play. And so he had to better himself to be able to fill that role and fulfill that destiny. So, i dont think its a particularly biblical approach to virtue, but more of a deep sense of who he was supposed to become. In terms of his personality, he definitely wasnt as outwardly colorful as franklin. But that didnt mean he was boring. And we tend to think of him as the marble bust or the picture on the one dollar bill. And thats not really who he was. He had a lot of passions. He loved to read, he loved the theater, he loved music, he loved dancing, he loved riding horses, he loved dogs. And these are the things that make up who he was, just like our passions make up who we are today. He also had a great sense of humor, which is sometimes underappreciated. One of my favorite washington stories is after he retired, he went home and they had these big meals almost every day. He was hosting guests every day, they were coming to see him. And his favorite hound was a big hound named vulcan. And one day, vulcan came in and basically stole the ham that was sitting on the dining room table and dragged it out of the room and ran outside with it. And martha was furious because she had ordered this dinner prepared, and washington thought it was hysterical and just burst out laughing and absolutely thought it was the funniest thing. And i love telling that story is because one, it shows he loves dogs and i love dogs, too. But it shows he was a real person and he enjoyed humorous things. Jeffrey wonderful. Thank you for that. You can add to any of that but i what to put a few more questions on the table, and was most about they are both about washington on slavery. Throughout his life, did washington own slaves . While in philadelphia he slaves. Ed to retain his for those who escaped, were their efforts in philadelphia to change his views on slaveowning . And bonnie asks, how strongly did franklin push his position of antislavery on washington, and in what setting, such as the Constitutional Convention, did franklin speak on slavery . Why dont you take both of those and add what you would like. Edward these are great questions, both of them. And that certainly was the achilles heel for washington because, as your people, as these questioners ask, franklin was pushed on being a model to oppose slavery. Remember, franklin had become the president of the first Abolitionist Society in america. Franklin was taking the lead in opposing, calling for the end of slavery. He was working worldwide with abolitionist leaders in france and in england to abolish slavery. Pennsylvania, first state to abolish slavery. Washington comes there as president. Now, he pressed washington, but more importantly, so did so many of his advisers. Hamilton, lafayette, lawrence. They all pressed washington during the revolution. Please, release your own slaves. Make a statement against slavery. Be like franklin. You and franklin are the leaders. You can set a model for it. And washington always equivocated. Thats the word for it. Hes pained by it. Hes pained when he talks to them. When it comes time for the Constitutional Convention, is franklin is the head of the governor of the state but head of the Abolitionist Society. He is pressed by the society to press for the abolition of slavery at the convention. He clearly talks with washington about it. But what franklin decides is the constitution wont go through. The carolinas, virginia, theyll bolt. We need to make a stronger federal union. Once we have that union, then can work to abolish slavery. Well have the power to do it. When the first government is formed, the first thing franklin does is submit petitions calling on congress to end slavery. And those petitions completely stop government for weeks as they have to debate the slavery issue raised by franklin. And washington is furious. We know his private letters. Because he wants to keep the country going. He wants to go further along this route. And so franklin is venting in washington is venting in private the franklin has done this. Thanks to madison, the manipulator, the petitions are buried after some debate. , butlin goes to his grave washington has the last word. , he frees his own slaves. Because he wasnt a great speaker, as lindsay pointed out, washington often led by actions, like retiring, led by his actions as a leader of the troops. And here, hes trying to lead, i believe, by the action of freeing his slaves at his desk at his death because that, he hopes to send a message. It doesnt work. Its too late. But thats where washington ends it. Franklin was pushing for it. That is one of their last, that is their last interaction. Its a divisive one. But its how it ended. Thats where they stand on slavery. And of course, as franklin warned in a speech read by Gouverneur Morris at the convention, its slavery thats going to tear this union apart. They realize it. Jeffrey thanks for all that and for addressing that crucial series of questions. Lindsay, sharon asks, did washington solicit advice from anyone else in choosing the first members of his cabinet . And ill just add, as well, this great question from nancy hart. Washington is such an incredible figure. Who were his mentors that helped him shape him as a person . Lindsay great question. Yes, washington absolutely did ask for advice of who he should appoint in his cabinet. He had a couple of key considerations. It was very important for him to represent different regions and interests in the nation. And so he made sure that hamilton represented the new york merchants, trade, industry, urban, perspective. Knox was making his home up in maine. Edmund randolph and Thomas Jefferson came from virginia. But they also had a lot of different backgrounds and experiences. They had the type of expertise that they could provide with a different perspective. And this was a precedent a lot of people dont appreciate, that president s that followed him really begin to follow this model. And of course, this idea of what interests and what people should be represented in that image has expanded and become more diverse, but he did ask for recommendations. Madison was really instrumental in getting him to choose jefferson as his secretary of state. As ed, i think, said earlier, i think Robert Morris was close with washington. There were good friends. But Robert Morris demurred and said he didnt want to be secretary of state. Secretary of the treasury. He encouraged hamilton as the next choice. It was important for washington that he had a personal relationship with all these people already. Hamilton was a natural second choice because they had this wartime relationship. Jefferson and washington knew each other well. Edmund randolph was an aide to comp early during the war, washingtons private attorney for many decades prior to coming into office. And henry knox was one of his favorite officers. And they were close immediately, from 1775. So, he had these different considerations and ask for peoples advice. And whoever fit that image or those different values, he was amenable to appointing. Jeffrey wonderful, thank you for all that. Well, its time for very brief closing thoughts in this absolutely wonderful discussion. Ill just tee it up with a question i asked lindsay when she appeared on the podcast. Im interested in your thoughts, edward. This is the question. In his wonderful novel, democracy, henry adams has a great scene where Madeleine Lee, whos the hero, takes a boat trip to mount vernon. And she is having a debate with a british nobleman about whether or not George Washington was overrated. And some of the participants say he actually was a paragon of virtue, and others say he was a paper saint. And Madeleine Lee decides the meaning of america turns on whether washington was a whether the, american idea is real or is a lie. If you had to take sides, what would your answer be and what would you want the audience to leave with about the central virtue of George Washington . Edward the story of washington, of course, when people look back at washington right after his death, talking right away, whats the story . The story of i cannot tell a lie. I cannot tell a lie. Now, thats a story. It didnt actually happen, but its a story that americans believe. And what it captures is the need that americans needed to believe that washington was not a lie, that washington was not a paper figure, that he really was fundamentally a saint. And that goes for franklin, too, whos worshiped. His autobiography is the bestselling book of the 19th century, worshiped by so many people. These people are founding fathers, have to have a certain sense, particularly washington and franklin, have to have this believability, this sense of truth. And i think washington was that way. I think washington was fundamentally honest. He dealt straight with people. He was honest. And that sort of honesty in government he admitted his limitations. He knew he wasnt infallible. Thats why he used a cabinet. Thats why he drew on others. But that sense of virtue and character, he had to not only project it, he had to live it. Jeffrey thank you so much. Lindsay, last word to you. You had a chance to think about the henry adams question. Was washington a paragon of roman virtue, or paper saint, or something in between . Lindsay yeah, i kind of want to stand by my original answer. I think he was neither and both, and thats what the nation is. Its this great idea and this great possibility in this great experiment, but of course continues to be deeply flawed. But that doesnt mean there is not incredible potential for innovation and growth and improvement. And as weve talked a lot about today, thats what washington wanted to pursue himself was constant betterment. And so, what better legacy to actually lead for the nation then constantly wanting to be better and be more virtuous and improve . Jeffrey thank you so much, lindsay and ed, for a superb launch of our National Constitution centers virtual town hall series. Friends, we have a series of great programs coming up, including on april 6, the constitutional legacy of the warren court. On april 20, why does the Electoral College exist . Thats a great debate. Lindsay [laughter] jeffrey your love hearing both you will love hearing both sides. April 23, how to fix president ial elections and in and beyond . 2020 dont we all want to do that . Im sure that will be a great discussion. And april 28, how to restore trust in american institutions. About an excellent new book. Thank you all, most of all, for taking time out of your days and evenings in these anxious times, these challenging times, to educate yourself about the constitution, to cultivate your faculties of reason, to learn and grow. Let us use these times we have , the leisure time, to continue to educate ourselves, and lets do it together. The National Constitution Center Stands ready, convene great stands ready to convene great thinkers like lindsay and ed to think together. Thank you so much for joining. National Constitutional Center friends, look forward to seeing you again soon. Lindsay thank you so much. This was so fun. Jeffrey thank you. Edward thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] every saturday night, American History tv takes you to College Classrooms around the country for lectures in history. Why do you know who Lizzie Borden is . Raise your hand if you ever heard of the jean harris murder trial before this class. Where we will find the true inning of the revolution is this transformation that took place in the minds of the american people. We will talk about both sides of the story. The tools, the techniques of slave owner power and we will talk about the tools and techniques of power that were people. D why enslaved watch history professors lead discussions with students on topics ranging from the American Revolution to september 11, lectures and history on cspan3 every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv and lectures in history is available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. Monday night, mark randolph, author of the book that will never work shows his experiences starting the online streaming service. Our cto hit a few keys, we were live. It did not take long, we got. Hat first dang we cheered, started opening champagne, three more orders, we were so excited. Two more. In all the excitement, we lost track of things until someone noticed, it has been a while since the bells rung. Is there a problem . It turned out in the first 15 minutes of being online, we had crashed all of our servers. Mark randolph on the communicators on cspan 2. American history tv is on cspan 3 every weekend and all of our programs are archived on our website. You can watch lectures in College Classrooms, tours of historic sites, archival films, and see our schedule of upcoming programs. At cspan. Org history. Cspan has roundtheclock coverage of the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic and it is all available on demand at cspan. Org coronavirus. Watch white house briefings, updates from governors and state officials, track the spread throughout the u. S. And the world with interactive maps, watch ondemand anytime, unfiltered, at cspan. Org coronavirus. Next, on American History tv, a conversation about cspans book the president s. Noted historians rank americas best and worst chief executives. This program, from washington, d. C. s museum, includes book contributors Kenneth Ackerman and david o stewart, who had written about James Garfield and andrew johnson, respectively. [chatter]