We the people podcast and i cant wait to share her work and her insights with you. Lindsay, welcome to americas town hall. Thank you so much for having me. And Edward Larsen holds the hue and hazel darling chair in law and is University Professor of history at pepperdine university, he is a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize in history and 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 great to welcome you to the National Constitution center. Thanks for having me back if only virtually. Well it is just great. And im so eager to learn from both of you and with both of you in the spirit of louie brandize, let us reason together, let the learning begin. Okay. Ed, lets begin with you because you have this powerful pairing of the two founders you consider the first among the founders, washington and franklin. You note that they are labelled first and second in the most famous portrait of the Constitutional Convention and were often considered foremost by their contemporaries. You developed so many parallels among them. Including their shared support for strong Central Government, the friendship that they cultivated during the battles of the french and indian war and opposition to the stamp act and during t during the colonial era and the Constitutional Convention but a shared quality in the characters and that is the devotion to a roman and almost stoic conception of virtue. Both said in different ways that a government cannot succeed without a virtuous people, they believe that happiness is impossible without virtue and virtue is necessary for a successful government. So then they got that from stoi golden rule as well as being a avid reader of socrates. Washington read to the troops and valley forge. Tell us how washington and franklin understood virtue and why they believed that it was crucial to the success of the government. Well, first we must realize that at the time, a continental republic was literally something new under the sun. There wasnt any example of an effective continental republic. There were very few republics. Maybe 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 both men, you are to realize and remember both were selfmade men. Both were 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 as it was to philadelphia, to be one of the wealthiest men in philadelphia. A true success. Washington is the same success story. Wasnt born into everything. He inherited some. But he worked hard to create it. 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 spent so much time in europe. And you realized they were decadent. Then you looked at the people, and the people were like sheep. They wanted to create something new. They were both children of the enlightenment. They wanted to create this new thing. They wanted to create a government of the people. Thats what washington wrote in the draft first inaugural. A government of the people. Lincoln later borrowed it. But that was from washington. And to do that thats what franklin dreamed about, too. And to do that, they believed they needed both republic virtue as they call it republican virtue in the leaders. They feared a demagogue, Patrick Henry would be their example. They feared that. They were aaron burr would be a later example. They feared what that would do to a country. Thats why they supported public education. Think what have franklin did to motivate and create public education. They knew they needed a virtuous people. Indeed, when they left the Constitutional Convention, on the last day of the continental con the Constitutional Convention in philadelphia, franklin gave a magnificent closing speech. In it he said, look, this isnt perfect. This wont last forever he said about the constitution. But its the best we can have now, but this government, if the people lose virtue, it will lead to tyranny like every other government. One of his first letters after he left philadelphia, George Washington wrote much the same thing to his nephew who later became a member of the supreme court, that this constitution will only work as long as the people have virtue and the leaders have virtue. Thats what they brought to government. Thats what they brought to the vision. Thats what they brought to whaewhat they were trying to create. They knew how fragile a republic was. Fasfascinating. Thank you so much for that. Lindsay, tell us about the powerful statement franklin and washington believed that the republic would falter unless the people and 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, ranging from temp temp temperance to humility. He said we should put check marks by them to see how we have done every day. I have tried it. Its quite sobering, actually, to see how tough it is to get the check mark. Washington had circulated although he didnt write famous rules for civility, which talked about how to conduct yourself. He cared about this, too. What were the sources that inspired washington . How did he believe people should cultivate this civic virtue . Sure. 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. So he has 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 tefs remembit was to him, high quality fiction. He was constantly trying to improve who he was from an ideological perspective but then also master what he knew to be his own shortcomings. So his temper, of course, is one of the most famous examples. He worked really hard to keep his sort of 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 civil government and not speak rashly to people who were his superiors. There were thing hez s he had t cultivate and learned from his mistakes and tried to bring that knowledge into his next position. He believe ed firmly that all citizens really needed they werent necessarily going to always meet his standstandards, everyone 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. It was so easy to go overboard. You needed to have citizens that were constantly trying to better themselves and were trying to sort of suss out their own weaknesses in order to maintain a republic. Thanks for all that. Ed, give us a sense about whether washingtons ex it 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 from their opposition to the stamp acts and other excesses of the british government, their service in the Continental Congress to their service on the war council. Highlight a few of those and describe their affects on washingtons character and his conception of virtue. Highlighting what lindsay said, i walked back to the shelf and pulled down the only book washington wrote. Rules of civility that she was mentioning. At the age of is 14 to show whae was. He didnt have great expectations. He was the third son. Back when virginia, everything was inherited by the first son. Not only was he third son, but he was the son by the second wife. So he thought he would have to make his own way. So thats why he learned surveying. Went out on the frontier. Thought this was important. Thought the future franklin believed the same thing. They believed that what made America Special and different from europe was there was a frontier. That people wouldnt be trapped and controlled by a few great 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 in an endindentured sert and making his own way. Washington went to the frontier and began surveying land. Thats a time he would he wrote down these max ims. He wrote them all down by hand. The first one is every action done in company ought to be with the same sign as respect to those that are present. Respect. That was a key one. That was number one here. It goes on with all the rest. Both view the future in the frontier. Washington went there and he learned lessons on the frontier just as franklin did. Then they were in two separate colonies. By the time the french and indian war comes, franklin was had made his fortune. He moved into public service. He had been elected to the colonial legislature. He had become the leader by sheer hard work, ability and just native brilliance. He had become the leader of the opposition, the nonquaker government. Meanwhile, washington both of his brothers had died. He had inherited mount vernon. He also inherited the leadership of the virginia militia. When the french and indian war came, the quake hrs had to leav the government of pennsylvania because they couldnt fight. Franklin became the effective governor and was made was given the authority to create a militia. What had happened is, the french and indian war was fought over whats called the forks of the ohio or the ohio country, which was western pennsylvania around pittsburgh and that area. Because the french had moved down 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 the Potomac River going west. It resulted that both virginia and pennsylvania claimed whats now pittsburgh. The french were there. So the french had roused up the native americans. They were attacking all settlers, from pennsylvania and virginia. Franklin had to go west, leading the troops. He turned out to be really good at it. To build a line of forts and defend pennsylvania. Washington has to go west as head of the militia and defend what is now western pennsylvania. So they started to Work Together. Both worked with braddock. Both warned, dont do it. These native americans are just going to cut you to slices. Which they did. Famously, braddock said back to fr frank ly franklin, they wont know how. Here we had the two people working together then. They realize, we can only win by working together. These states, these colonies cant work independent. They have to Work Together. They also learned that you cant 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 cant settle in the west. This is really what sets franklin and washington off. 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 from right from the get go, they fought for that. They thought they needed to unify. These colonies couldnt do it alone. So they learned together at the french and indian war, the need for americans to band together. Thats when franklin drew his famous cartoon. The First Political cartoon drawn in america, the unit or die with the rattlesnake cut into pieces. That was this sint iis inter. It was published in his paper. The First Political cartoon. 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 together. They bring that knowledge that we need. Unity, we need people with economic and opportunity and political freedom. We need virtue. They brought that to the revolutionary war where they were the two indispensable americans. Washington leading the troops, franklin proposed he lead the troops. Franklin oversaw the war 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 washington with washington to know where is the french navy needed, where is the french army needed . York town wouldnt have happened if he hadnt arranged for the french navy and french army and washington brought down the American Army to capture cornwallace in york town. 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. He gets elected governor of pennsylvania. He is fabulous at the job. The state was in trouble before him. He knows thousand make it work. Then, of course, they both washington from mount vernon, franklin from his seat as governor of pennsylvania, push 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, the ability to raise troops and to raise funds and to project our armies, open up the frontier, what was happening is no state had an interest in protecting the frontier. The native americans were moving back. They had retaken the ohio country, retaken the forks of the ohio, retaken twothirds of georgia. So it was these needs of a unified of opening the frontier, of maintaining the frontier, of having a Central Government controlled over Foreign Policy and Central Government able to raise taxes and spend money for the common welfare and also control interstate commerce. Franklin and washington, because they had both run businesses that crossed state lines, they knew that was essential to create a place that would have a growing economy, which was central to the peoples virtue, and to protect critical freedom and not have individual states go off like rhode island and georgia were. These are what they brought together and what drew them together to philadelphia. So when George Washington comes to philadelphia for the continental for the Constitutional Convention, the very first place he goes after dropping off his bags at Robert Morris house was to make to visit franklin. They sat down there under the Mulberry Tree in front of his house. They discussed what they needed to do to make a more perfect union. That is great. You have given us so much to think about, taking washington down and franklin up to the Constitutional Convention. You begin your book by describing the scene of washington deciding you imagine not to drive up to franklins house, because he was accompanied by enslaved people. Franklin did not approve of slavery. Washington did. He thought it would have more simplicity to walk. You take from all those experiences this powerful shared devotion strong Central Government, strong commerce power to keep the west open and to ensure economic independence. Lindsay, i would love you to gives your insight on that broad period from your remarkable and helpful perspective. Take us up through the same period. Ed didnt talk as much about the revolutionary war and exactly how franklin and washington joined together on the war council. 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 to civic virtue . Sure. So, i mean, washington, i think has to be really understood as someone that has a military mindset. Most of his leadership, up until the presidency, was in a military capacity. Sure, he had sat in the house of burgesses. He wasnt particularly known for his oral speaking abilities. So 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 with the army. He only went home to mount vernon once. It was on the way down to yorktown. He was with the army every day except for when Congress Called him to wherever they happened to be working at that moment for an update. So he saw day in and day out the lack of food, the lack of shoes. When people say the people had bloody feet, thats not an exaggeration. The lack of materials. The lack of food for horses. The lack of ammunition. He felt very strongly that this is a direct quote. That they were expecting him to build bricks without straw. So he became convinced that 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 cant 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 convicti conviction. It was his time after the war, the in between period, where he becomes convinced that congress isnt the right body to hold that authority. They tend to bicker. Congressmen come and go. Theres a lack of institutional knowledge. A committee has a difficult time making a decision, because one person can move more quickly and more efficiently. 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 kind of want different things. They are bickering over defense expenses because eastern regions feel like western settlers are provoking conflict with native americans. They want to have to pay for their defense. By the end of 1787, sections are threatening to break off and form their own nation. This terrified 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. So 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 and then pursue policy and implement that quickly and strategically and with authority. He feels Like Congress is just not well equipped to act in that way. So 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 this was going to be him. Which is one of the reasons that i think he was sort of procrastinating about going to the convention and was sort of reluctant to go initially and knew what 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 was going to be him. But he believed that he alone really could fill that position, because he was the most i would argue he was the most famous man in the world. Maybe ed would disagree with me about franklin. I would argue washington was the most famous. He was better equipped to lead the nation in this way. He was fone of the few people that 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. Many thanks for that and for noting his reluctance to attend the convention. As you noted, if he werent 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. Ed, talk about franklin and washingtons contribution to the convention. They didnt 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 its setting. Franklin did have a greater role behind the scenes, especially in helping to broker the connecticut compromise that led to the balance of the house and the senate. I guess focusing on washington in particular, because he is our central hero here, what were his constitutional contributions to the convention . I agree very much with how lindsay set it up. He believed in a strong executive, democratically elected executive, one who would serve with terms that would be limited. But he did believe in a need for a strong executive, sch owhich e of the that franklin disagreed with him. Franklin had written the constitution of pennsylvania, which has a weak executive and strong legislature. When franklin was governor by the strength of his character and will, he made it work. Everybody listened to him. That was the situation we have going into the convention. You have these two i would a degree with lindsay that washington was one most famous people in the world. I believe he and franklin were coequal in that respect. They both were the two universally respected people in america. In you read every argument for ratification it doesnt matter whether its from georgia or new hampshire, they all said, if franklin and washington gave us this, or if washington and franklin gave us this, we have to ratify it. They were the two people essential to make it work. They agreed on the big things. They agreed on a strong Central Government. They agreed on the Central Government having power over interstate commerce, because they didnt want states fighting with each other on commerce. They believed on the Central Government having power over the military and over diplomacy and the frontier. All the big things they agreed on. They did differ. What franklin said he said quite a bit at the convention. Both of them were so committed to this working that both washington and franklin were constantly, both of them, having meetings. Meeting with people afterwards, at their homes or where washington was staying or at the inns and lodges they were staying at. They were both brokering compromises. Central to their character, both of them believed in compromise. Both of them believed that we dont compromise on principal, but we compromise on means. As lindsay said, washington wasnt a great public speaker. Either 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. They wrote it down as virtues of sharing credit, working like a team. They believed in working together. Thats why franklin worked on the council. Thats why washington wanted a cabinet. This was their character. They did disagree strongly on how much power the president would have, because franklin feared that 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. Jerry from massachusetts was key. Randolph of virginia. George mason of virginia. The four of them were arguing for a weaker presidency. They pushed for and franklin got things like the power of impeachment. He thought that was essential. They pushed for term limits and for all sorts of things like this. They didnt get it all. The other three this is important. The other three vote no. Mason voted no. Randolph voted no. Because they both voted no from v virginia, it was 32, because they went the other way. Jerry votes no. Franklin in the famous last speech, which surprised some people, said 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 we know who the first person is. As long as washington is president , this is going to be fine because he has civic virtue. But this could lead to tyranny in some other president. Were going to do it. We need washington to set the standard, set the terms, set the precedence that will lead for us. Franklin had so much faith in washington as a leader, even though they disagreed on slavery, so much faith in washingtons virtue that he supported the constitution and without his support, there was no way. If you look, the only things that get the convention is secret. 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 the people read the constitution, they read it together with washingtons powerful transmittal letter and franklins final closing speech. They knew those two things leaked. They leaked for a reason. Thanks for all that. How interesting to learn in your account of the fact that franklin did side with the an antifederalists who refused to sign the constitution with randolph and jerry 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 foundation for the modern presidency as you put it by throwing in his lot with hamilton, wilson, morris and the other supporters of the strong executive and how important to note, as you do, that washingtons transmittal letters was so central and that during ratification his support in virginia was crucial as well. He declared the best constitution that can be obtained in this and said the powers granted to congress were indispensable necessary to perform the function of good government. That brings us up to the presidency of washington and the suggest of your book. In your book, you argue that the constitution itself did not establish a president ial candidate. In fact, the delegates to the convention rejected the idea. Tell us how and why washington created one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government, why he waited 2 1 2 years to call a cabinet and what the models for his cabinet were dating back to his service in the councils of war that he led as commander of the commonwealth army. Sure. U as you noted, the word cabinet doesnt exist in the constitution. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated this concept. They knew that a president needed advice. No president ever leads alone. They knew there needed to be people to provide support and assistance. They were very worried about a cabinet because they had just come from declaring independence from great britain. They felt that that sort of council would lead to corruption. It would lead to cronyism. It hid transparency at the highest levels of government. It obscured who was responsible for each decision. They really didnt want to implement that sort of system into the new government. So they put in place two different alternatives. One, the president could request written advice from the Department Secretaries. These two provisions are in article two, section two of the constitution. The president could request written advice from the Department Secretaries on matters pertaining to their department. This was crafted very carefully. It demonstrates their desire to have basically a pain other trail, a chain of evidence what people were advising and who was saying what and who was advocating for each position. If the opinions are written, then you have the documentation. They also wanted advisers to stick to their area of expertise. They didnt want advisers talking about every topic. They wanted the president to be getting detailed, concise, wellestablished advice from people who had experience in these areas. The second option that they gave was the senate. Unlike today when the senate sort of serves as a rubber stamp on treaties or apoipointments o rejects them, the senate was intended to be a council on Foreign Affairs and provide advise to the president when he was considering issue fs of diplomacy. It was smaller at the time. Its not 100 people trying to provide advice. This was the expectation. The senate was indirectly elected. It was states. It could be held accountable for the advice they were given. When washington went into the presidency, he as ed 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 listening to music. He had a very clear expectation of what they had decided about the advisers. He had been listening. So he went into the presidency attempting to really follow these rules. He visits with the senate in august of 1789. To goes very badly because the senate was acting like a legislative body. They wanted to deliberate. They wanted to talk about it in committee. Washington was a military man. He wanted that 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. He decides that he is not going to go back to the senate to request advice. He quickly discovers that written advice isnt really effective either because today when were exchanging emails with people, sometimes we will have another question and we will forget that we wanted to ask it. We can send another email. Maybe tone isnt conveyed. Imagine doing that with parment and quill. You have to have it delivered. They have to write a response. These are serious matters of state. They are complicated issues. Washington was frustrated that letters were moving too slowly. He will exchange a letter or two and then he started inviting his secretaries over for individual consultations. To have followup discussion. Did that for about 2 1 2 years. The first Cabinet Meeting didnt actually take place until november 26, 2 1 2 years into washingtons administration. It shows that it wasnt there from day one. It wasnt what anyone expected. As you mentioned, washington really drew on his council of war experience to shape the interactions in the cabinet. It was the leadership experience he knew. It is what worked really well for him during the war. Thank you for that. Its an important story. It has not been told before. Tieing washingtons war service to this institution that he created during the presidency, which does not appear in the constitution, has illuminated us all. I think we have we have 20 questions in the q a box. Theyre so good. Its time to start asking them. Because there are so many, lets try to get through amany as possibas many as possible. The first question is, professor larson, love your books. Remind us why president washington stepped down after eight years, just two terms, and did it set precedent . It did set precedent. Its a great question. That reflects his republic virtue. He believe you rule by the call of the people. It wasnt a strong presidency. We have to remember, mixed with that was his belief he served the call of the people. He had done the same thing when he was a military leader. He vowed that when the revolution was over, he vowed at the beginning that he would step down. The opponents would say, look, look, the british said, look, why are you changing one george for another . You have george the iii. Now you get king George Washington. Look at every rebel leader. They become dictators. Washington said, no, im going to step down. That creates the cincinnati story from the roman leader of 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 , that 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. That was set that standard. He believed everything he was doing was setting a precedent. Hamilton believed that. So did governor morris. So did the key advisers. He believed he was setting a precedent. That lasted up until world war ii and roosevelt. As soon as roosevelt broke it, then the states and Congress Passed a constitutional ame amendment to enshrine it in our constitution. Two terms, thats it. Thanks very much for that. There are several questions about virtue. Virtue may have been an aspiration for franklin and washington, but they were sufficiently skeptical to wish to aspire to virtue and guard against vice. Would you agree . We also have a question about whether their conception of virtue in washington, in the seek for improvement, was it grounded in religious faith or if fidelity. I will ask the stoic or classical reason was part of it. Then theres a question about how franklin was more colorful in his personal life than washington. His personal life was beyond reproach. How central was this conception of virtue to shaping this character that made him this way. I will let you take all three about washington and franklin and virtue. Sure. Lots of questions about virtue. Which is great. I think its something that were seeing is an important part of politics. We want our politicians to be virtuous, especially in times of crisis, like we are facing today. I think that washington was not a particularly religious person. He had a deep sense that there was some sort of providence. 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. So he had to better himself to be able to fill that role. And fulfill that destiny. I dont think its a biblical approach. But its 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. That didnt mean he was boring. We tend to think of him as the marble bust or the picture on the one dollar bill. Thats not who he was. He had a lot of passions. He loved to read. He loved theater. He loved music, dancing. He loved riding horses. He loved dogs. 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 isunder d appreciated. After he retired, he went home. They had these big meals almost every day because he was hosting guests every day that were coming to see him. His favorite hound was a big hound named vulcan. He 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. Martha was furious. She had ordered this dinner prepared. Washington thought it was hysterical and bust out laughing and thought it was the funniest thing. I love telling that story because, it showsd dogs, but it shows he was a real person. He enjoyed humorous things. Wonderful. Thank you for that. If i could let me just you can add to any of that. I want to put two more questions on the table to get as many of them as possible. They are both about washington and slavery. Robert asks, throughout his life, George Washington owned slaves and in philadelphia he maneuvered to retain his slaves. Is there evidence of efforts made to change his views on slavery and slave owning . 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 about slavery . Ad these are great questions. That certainly was the achilles heel for washington. 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 england to abolish slavery. Pennsylvania, was first to abolish slavery. So many of his advisors pressed. Hamilton, lafayette, they pressed washington during the revolution. Please, release your own slaves. Make a statement about slavery. Be like franklin and you are the leaders. You can set a model for it. Washington always equivocated. Thats the word for it. He is pained by it. He is pained when he talked to them. When it comes time for the Constitutional Convention, franklin as governor of the state and head of the about lym abolitionist slavery, he pushed to talk about it. What franklin decides is, the constitution wont go through. We need to make a stronger federal union. Once we have it, that federal union can work to abolish slavery. It will have the power to do it. So when the first government is formed, the first thing franklin does is submit petitions calling on congress to end slavery. Those petitions completely stop government for weeks as they have to debate the slavery issue raised by franklin. Washington is furious. We know his private letters. He wants to keep the country going. He thinks we have to go further along this route. So franklin is just venting in private that franklin has done this. Thanks to madison, the manipulator, those petitions are buried after a while, after debate. Franklin goes to his grave. Washington has the last word. In his will, he frees his own slaves. Washington, because he wasnt a great speaker, just as lindsay pointed out, he often led by actions, such as retiring. Led by his actions as a leader of the troops. Here he is trying to lead, i believe, by the action of freeing his slaves at his death. Because that he hopes to send a message. It doesnt work. Its too late. But thats where washington ends it. Franklin is pushing for it. Thats one of the last thats the last interaction. Its a divisive one. Its how it ended. So thats where they stand on slavery. Of course, as franklin warned in a speech read by governor morris at the convention, its slavery thats going to tear this union apart. They realized it. Thanks for all that and for addressing that crucial series of questions. Lindsay, did washington solicit advice from anyone else when choosing the first members of his cabinet . I will add as well, this great question from nancy, washington is such an incredible figure, who were his mentors . Who helped shape him as a person . Great questions. Yes, washington absolutely did ask for advice about who he should appoint in his cabinet. He had a couple of key considerations. It was very important to him to represent different regions in the nation. He made sure hamilton represented the new york merchant trade industry, urban perspective. Knox was making his home in maine. Randolph and jefferson came from virginia. They also had a lot of different backgrounds. They had a lot of different experiences. They had the type of expertise that they could provide him with the different perspective. This is a press departmecedent dont appreciate that president s follow this model. The idea of what interests and what people should be represented in that image has expanded and become more diverse. He did ask for recommendations. Madison was really instrumental in getting him to choose jefferson as his secretary of state. As ed said earlier, Robert Morris was very close with washington. They were good friends. Robert morris said he didnt want to be the secretary of the treasury and encouraged hamilton as the next choice. It was important to washington that he had a personal relationship with all of these people already. Hamilton was a natural second choice because they had had this wartime relationship. Jefferson and washington knew each other well. Randolph was an aid early in the war, was washingtons private attorney for many decades prior to coming into office. Henry knox was one of his favorite officers and they were close immediately from 1775. He had these different considerations and asked for peoples advice. Whoever fit that image or those different values, he was amenable to appointing. Wonderful. Thank you for all that. Its time for very brief closing thoughts in this wonderful discussion. I will just tee it up with a questionlindsay. In his wonderful novel, democracy henry adams has a great scene where madeleine lee, who is the hero, takes a trip to mount vernon. Shes having a debate with a british nobleman about whether or not George Washington was overrated and some of the participants say that he actually was a paragon of virtue and others say he was a paper saint. Madeleine lee says it turns on whether he was a saint or not. The stakes are nothing less than whether its real or alive. Ed, if you had to take sides, what would your answer be . What do you want our audience to leave with about the central virtue of George Washington . The story of washington, of course, when people look back at washington, right after his death, we are talking about right away, whats the story . The story of, i cannot tell a lie. I cannot tell a lie. Thats a story. It didnt actually happen. Its a story that americans believed. What it captures is the need that americans need to believe needed to believe that washington was not a lie. That washington was not a paper figure. That he really was fundamentally a saint. That goes for franklin, too, who is worshipped. His autobiography is the best selling book of the 19th century. Worshipped by so many people. These people our Founding Fathers have to have a sense, particularly washington and franklin, have to have this believability, this sense of truth. I think washington was that way. I think washington was fundamentally honest. He didnt he dealt straight with people. He was honest. That sort of honesty he admitted his limitations. He knew he wasnt infallible. Thats why he drew on others. That sense of virtue and character, he had to not only project it, he had to live it. 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 a paper saint or something in between . Yeah, kind of want to stand by my original answer. I think he was neither and both. Thats what the nation is. Its this great idea and this great possibility and great experiment. But, of course, continues to be deeply flawed. That doesnt mean theres not incredible potential for innovation and growth and improvement. As we have talked a lot about today, thats what washington wanted to pursue himself, was constant betterment. So what better legacy to actually leave for the nation than constantly wanting to be better and be more virtuous and impro improve. Thank you so much, lindsay and ed for a superb launch for our virtual town hall series. Friends, we have a series of great programs coming up, including on april 6, the constitutional legacy of the warren count, april 20th, why does the Electoral College exist. Thats a great debate. I know you will love hearing both sides. April 23, how to fix president ial elections in 2020 and beyond. Dont we want to know how do that . Im sure that will be a great decision. April 28, how to restore trust in americas institutions. Excellent. Thank you all for taking time out of your days and evenings and these anxious times, these challenging times to educate yourself about the constitution, to cultivate your faculties to reason, to learn and grow. Let us continue to educate ourselves and do it together. National Constitutional Center stands ready to have great thinkers so we can learn together. Thank you for joining. National constitutional friends, look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you so much. This was fun. Thank you. You are watching a special edition of American History tv. Airing during the week while members of congress are in their districts due to the coronavirus pandemic. Tonight, at 8 00 p. M. , a historian discusses the misconceptions about the civil war. Talks about concepts crucial to understanding the conflict. The talk begins a night of programs from ac cohosted by the center for Civil War History and the library of virginia in richmond. American history tv, now and over the weekend on cspan3. Every saturday night, American History tv takes you to College Classrooms for lectures in history. Why do you all know who lizzy borden is . Raise your hand if you heard of the jean harris murder trial before this class. The deepest cause where we find the true meaning of the revolution was in the transformation that took place in the minds of the american people. Were going to talk about both of these sides of the story. The tools, the techniques of slave owner power. We will talk about the tools and techniques of power that were practiced by enslaved people. Watch history professors lead discussions with their students on topics ranging from the American Revolution to september 11th. Lectures in history on cspan3 every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv. Its available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. Next, on lectures in history, andrew slap of East Tennessee State University teaches a class on president s Lincoln Johnson and the constitution. He compares how both president s have been portrayed as either upholding or disregarding the constitution and whether their reputations match their actions in office. Good morning. Thank you all for coming. Today were transitioning in the co