Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Of The Founding Era Today 20240713

Senate it is my honor to welcome you here. We are going to have a conversation about the intersection of Early American History and contemporary political issues. If this is your first visit to the institute, i want to welcome you to our fullscale replica of the United States senate chamber. We arekennedy institute, committed to engaging the public in a conversation about the role each one of us plays in our democracy and our society. We do that through Civic Education programs that bring the United States senate to life and conversations like tonight that bring American History into focus. Partnerery proud to with the Massachusetts Historical Society on todays program. They are an invaluable resource for american life, history, and culture. All of us at the institute are proud together together a group of panelists for the Program Including our moderator, fred tice. He covers news related to politics in Higher Education at sincehere he has been 1988. Serving as a trusted source of truth and information. He previously was the nbc news bureau chief in mexico city in the south america reporter for cbs news based in argentina. Turning fred on the panel are four scholars who provide perspective on, and knowledge of, our nations founders. Together they will paint an informative picture of how the founders operated and what current lawmakers, and each one of us, can learn from them. Tonights historians include liz copart from the institute of Early American History and culture and post a Ben Franklins world. A podcast about Early American History. Of rush. Ed, author a visionary doctor who became a founding father, he is an adjunct professor at the university of pennsylvania. Ini and matt jeannie shively, president and ceo of revolutionary spaces. Thank you all of you for being here tonight. I hope that you will visit again for one of our programs and exhibits. You are always welcome here. I will now invite fred in our panelists to come up to the front and we will begin the program. Thank you. [applause] fred welcome to the fullsized rep. Correa of the United States welcome to the fullsized replica of the United States senate. Historian of a early america who practices scholarly history, public history, and digital humanities. She is the Digital Projects editor at the institute of Early American History and culture at the university of william and mary in williamsburg, virginia. She is the creator and host of the Popular History podcast. Rly 300 episodes i believe Ben Franklins world. Stephen fried is a bestselling and ap of columbia professor at the university of pennsylvania and columbia. His book is an autobiography of one of the signers of the declaration, Benjamin Rush. It was published september 2018 and was a finalist for the 2019 George Washington book prize. A twotime winner of the National Magazine award, he has written for vanity fair, gq, the Washington Post magazine, rolling stone, glamour, ladies home journal, and philadelphia magazine. [laughter] is the series editor for the papers of john adams, part of the adams papers editorial project in the building not too far away at the Massachusetts Historical Society. E is the author of household gods. She is a cofounder and how is ito the pronounced . Jovunto . Sarah sure. [laughter] fred at the end we have matt shively who is the ceo of revolutionary spaces which was bostonianthe old society. He spent eight years at the Bostonian Society where he was the director of public history and later executive director. He was associate professor at Wellesley College before he entered the field of public history. Here wee to start are in the replica of the United States senate. , the senatorsate are as divided as washington, as the parties. It seems like we are in a complete gridlock. Where the founders ever this divided . Maybe io answer will start with you, sarah. Sarah i think we have always felt moments where we great polarization. Listening to the introductions of the panelists i think, places like this are revolutionary spaces. This is a way to bring they 18thcentury mirroring, or give tips to, the 21st century. Anyone wanted jump in on that . Fred maybe with a tip. Matt youre being very kind about this. [laughter] i was astonished by how mean the Founding Fathers were to each other but i find it comforting. Benjamin rush was not only one of the signers but he was a doctor to a number of these guys. There were a lot of personal emails email, letters. [laughter] i remember reading john adams being called a maggot in the newspaper during one of the elections. The idea we invented partisanship, we invented media meanness, is a bad reading of history. As soon as there was america, as soon as there were two parties, there was this partisanship. Especially in the 1790s in philadelphia where you had a ton of media and everyone living in a closed space. It mirrors what we are seeing now in a surprising way that i think of people saw it, they were not be quite as freaked out about now. If you read the dialogues between the founders, they are always asking whether they blew it already. The questions we have today like is america over . Did we blow it . The people who made this country thought of that all the time. You can see it in the letters and you can see the optimism they come to that they are still going to move forward. That is hardwired into the country the minute it was a country. Polarization was not something that was foreign to the founding generation. They had even more reasons to be divided. First mother had to think about to be overthrow this king . Do we support this new government under the articles of confederation and later the constitution or are we for our own states . We forget the early government had more power in the states than the national government. The fighting between new york and massachusetts or maryland and pennsylvania were more intense. In addition to being polarized about political issues people were trying to figure out who they were as the american people. That is part of the journey we are still living with today. [applause] i think it is important to think about matt i think it is important to think about that. We have a document that uses the phrase we the people but there was nothing about outside the body politics. If we use the small lens and use the consensus of who was a voter and who ought to have a voice, even as stephen was letting us know, there is a sharp divide. There is polarization, increasing partisanship and if we broaden the lens and ask was outside the sanctioned category of we the people, if we include those who were enslaved, women who were denied political rights, men who lacked sufficient property to have voting rights. Far, broaden the lens that we can see they were deep fundamental conflicts that divided beyond a chamber like this one. It divided the entire population of north america and i think it can be empowering for us to remember that. As we grapple in this moment with that question. An when we say we the people . That is a question that feels super alive in all communities right now across the country. We can feel a kinship with the founding era. We are divided but we are also united by our shared argument over that question. Stephen what provides continuity to the american character . What has been a constant since the early days prior to the American Revolution . Matt i touched on it a little bit already but the way i think about this is that we stand as a of dialoguecurrent around a set of fundamental questions. They are not questions given to us necessarily by the founders or by the founding generation but they deeply run through the era of the revolution and the revolution settlement. They are the questions each generation has to grapple with further own time and find fresh answers to. Those questions run Something Like this. Who speaks for me . How do i have a voice . What is my recourse when my voice is not heard and the question of who is inside and whose outside the circle of we the people . That is the current i think that binds us together. Fred the questions i know rush brought up his main thing was he wrote after the revolutionary war the wars over but the revolution just started. Keep in mind, he was a doctor. He did not think the things they talked about were going to get fixed. They think about incremental improvement. Rush looked at the issues about what the responsibilities were of the citizens paired i dont think he felt people were educated enough or took seriously enough what authority have been taken away from them by getting rid of the king and state church and all of the things they were going to have to do. How challenging it was going to be to have separation of church and state so all people could worship equally. How challenging it was going to be to have Public Education so people could be worthy of their citizen had citizenship. Stephen how did they break through the gridlike echo did they have gridlike . If i can geek out for a minute and share a story from my daily world. [laughter] we are currently readying the next paper of john adams and it carries us through the First Federal congress. The senate looks a little different and john adams day. There is still a great deal of political divisions and as i am indexing, one of the things i index the most here are two entries i always have under Congress Regional and political divisions and need for union as well as possible disunion. Ideas isergence of constantly on the minds of people in power. You have an extraordinary moment in the founding era were a generation of revolutionaries are integrating into a federal government such as the world has never seen. They are keenly aware the world is watching and one of the ways they overcome this divide is personal, right . I have a Great Exchange between saam adams and john adams who were cousins and on different sides of constitutional praise and criticism, who are thinking differently about the future of the country, and they try so hard in their correspondence to feast, as they say, on a dish of politics. They put this in a wonderful sense but i know they are struggling so hard. In the letters back and forth they look for Common Threads that they were both in agreement on during the more revolutionary days. Liberty, a love of love of education, a need for us to have some kind of federal government that will stand the wear and tear of all this infighting we currently see. Government of laws and not of men as john always wished it to be. We see these kinds of personal, family level conflicts that are raging with the political nuance and we see people trying to overcome it. I think some of it is interpersonal, some political, but it is the fact that in this founding era, we have a remarkable set of figures who are if nothing else lifelong students of government. They are fascinated by how governments work and where they can carry us. Stephen Chuck Schumer on the daily talked about you look at Chuck Schumer is that he must never talk to the republicans at this point and of course he does. Andalks to them in the gym he finds out where they stand on things like asking about witnesses in the trial or not . Liz, you have this podcast about Ben Franklins world in which you touch on everything from the relationship of massachusetts and nova scotia to have the bill of rights came about. Howou have any thoughts on people at opposite ends who were creating this country or Political Institutions of this country were able to get beyond gridlock when they had good luck . Liz i think that is the ageold question. When you look at the scope of American History you are dealing with a lot of different people and a lot of it for political entities, cultures, different religions, all trying to get along. It is trying to find the art of compromise. Can see this in the life of ben franklin. He was not perfect. His son was a loyalist, he was a patriot and never forgive william foret. For it. He was never able to find compromise but he was at the Constitutional Convention saying, hey, i want a unified legislature. I think people should have the right to vote but a lot of the states are worried about the people voting and the mob. He advocates for compromise and one of the things he advocates for his part of the connecticut plan which is you should have two houses in congress. It is a struggle. He gets in the Constitutional Convention several times and says we need to compromise. No government can be perfect or perhaps weve created the perfect government and cannot see it yet. He is advocating for compromise and as the historian Barbara Burke said, the art of compromise is not something that is heroic but something that is the stuff of democracy. It is what gets democracy done and i think you can see the founding generation grappling with that. Even our own generation trying to grapple with that. We tend to look at the senate and house but these guys were copper mines at the state level. Part of the reason franklin had to deal with a unicameral constitution was because that is what pennsylvania had. Liz he proposed it. Fred adams and rush went on and on about their fear the pennsylvania constitution because pennsylvania was powerful could prevail. It had one house, you could throughout the chief executive, you can get rid of the supreme court, and it had a test for religion. The original pennsylvania constitution, which rush got voted out of the constant continental that congress Continental Congress that you had to swear in 03 tous swear and oath jesus. Benjamin rush believed that personally but thought it was horrifying there be a religious test in any constitution. Fear that thet pennsylvania constitution would have sway but im glad it did not. Stephen matt, you are the custodian of these two important buildings in early america and the old statehouse. What can you tells about these places and what kinds of divisions were within them . Maybe how people were able to break some of these divisions. Matt our organization cares for the old statehouse which was the seat of provincial government. The see of formal politics in boston and the surrounding colony and old south meetinghouse, which was a Congregational Church as well as the biggest indoor Gathering Place it was the tea party hering in december 1773 there is a lot of ways to get purchase on this question about compromise for the difficulty of achieving political copyrights. Istory i often like to tell set in the stamp act crisis so that the colonies understand parliament is complementing contemplating a tax. There try to figure out how to prevent that from being put in place. Two different spaces in the old statehouse, the governors Counsel Chamber and the Assembly Room for the elected representatives gathered, two very different answers to how to defeat the stamp act. Thomas hutchinson who was the institutionalist of revolutionary massachusetts had mastered all the institutions of the transatlantic empire and was so well positioned to use Patronage Networks to call in favors to defeat measures advocated for a moderate position what we should do is write a letter to parliament and say, yes, parliament has the authority to tax the colonies but we really think it would not be expedient because it would make people upset. People really love london right now and why would you want to squander that . That was his idea. In the other house james otis who is working alongside samuel adams and others has a different idea. No, we should call of the stamp act as a transgression that is unconstitutional and we should name parliament lacks the authority to impose taxes on the colonies directly. Able to gettely that idea adopted by an intercolonial Stamp Act Congress but he cannot get the resolution to carry in his own house in massachusetts. He is so frustrated by that. They pass it in the house and it goes up to the governors counsel for conference. It has to be seconded and they refuse. They send it back. Hutchinson insists we have to tone it down and take a more moderate position. Moderate in the house agree. The best massachusetts can do is send a letter to the ministry saying, you know, it is not a great idea. We wish you would not do it. Otiss head is fit to explode. What does he do . Immediately after the resolution of the stamp act crisis and it is defeated by protests in the street, he works with two other gentlemen from boston to push the idea a public viewing gallery should be put into the Assembly Room. Why . There is a very strong prohibition in the massachusetts house of representatives on running off to the press and telling anyone what was said and closed session. The moderates had cover, they could reach compromise without popular pressure. As soon as you put the public up in a gallery, as soon as the moderates say, ok, we should make common cause with the conservatives, we should support crown authority, there is an implied threat that somebody is going to go across the street to the boston gazette, your name is going to be published, and edge again to crowd of angry protesters is going to be in front of your house the next day threatened to break every window and terribly door down. The next crisis that happens when the townsend duties are house, the massachusetts is entirely radicalized. They refuse to compromise and here is somebody actively trying to ensure compromise cannot happen in order to press the popular will. Liz politics was violent back then. [laughter] peoples houses get torn down. The one thing i found interesting being somebody from the media i was always looking , at the media. The country is so different before 1790 and after when there are many daily newspapers in the u. S. Capitol. We. Look at newspapers and we we look at newspapers and we have to remember that up until that time, there was not a ton of Media Coverage and not everybody could read. There were a lot of people that did not know what was going on. There were also a lot of people in philadelphia, a loyalist city where most people did not want anything to change. A lot of people were not passionate about either side of this. They just wanted to go to work and raise their kids. It was not until america freed itself from england that they had to accept the responsibilities of the revolution. When you look at the onset of internet and politics has been made so crazy because of all of this, imagine what it was like to have the u. S. Capitol moved to philadelphia and have eight daily newspapers suddenly in a town. Philadelphia was only the to 9th street, so it was tiny. I would argue that that influx of media and that crazy Media Coverage of the capital was probably as amazing as the influx of Electronic Media today. There has always been these dynamics of people on both sides, people stuck in the middle, and the American Media fanning the flames. Fred boston was at the forefront of the revolution,. What happens to john adams when he has all of these definite ideas and he goes to this loyalist city and has to be mindful that virginia feels like it should be leading everything . How does he win people over . Sarah he does and he doesnt. That is the short story of john adams legacy. He has a complicated relationship with the American Revolution, his role in it and histories that follow out of it. The thing to remember about john adams, like Thomas Jefferson, they are not here, they are not on american shores. They are in europe securing funding and aid and support and troops. So they come back a decade later to a very changed world. To people who are creating a government who they have not seen since the Continental Congress. A different media landscape we might think of it as. People who are actively thinking through their Patronage Networks, and what is in it for them . Although those Office Seekers who fled his mail . He gets these letters all the time. I think it is a very complicated question for john adams and for his cohort. The truth is he does not always mix easily with loyalists. He has a lot of interactions with them in london. Where some are close family some are closee family friends. His Family Doctor is a loyalist. But he lives actually in Grosvenor Square and a couple doors down is Frederick Lord north. The first person to point out how awkward this situation is is abigail adams. So you have a heightened awareness of what peoples loyalties were. But there is also flexibility now about what they might be, because often the loyalists who emigrated to britain did not receive good compensation or treatment. So they reintegrate back into american communities, there is a great diaspora of them throughout the world, and john adams often encounters them with something not unlike sympathy or pity. He often renews friendships that he has lost and he sunders a few new ones along the way. I am thinking particularly of the warrens. , mercy and james. It is a very fraught legacy that he has. He, himself is an actor in making that complicated. Fred stephen, we are at the one ofkennedy institute , the great accomplishments of ted kennedy was in the field of health care. Health care broadly defined. Obviously, he pushed for obamacare, the american with disabilities act. His last great accomplishment you were pointing out earlier was in the field of Mental Health. And if so, what did Benjamin Rush think about how society if not the federal government what the responsibility of society was to take care of the sick and the mentally ill . Stephen it is interesting. It is two different questions. When it comes to Mental Illness, he and ted kennedy and ted kennedys two sons who were active in were right in lockstep. Which is that they wanted to make sure that people saw Mental Illness and addiction as medical diseases that needed to be treated by medicine and not as failures of religious belief or failures of will. What is amazing is that Benjamin Rush wrote about that in the 1780s. And we are still unfortunately debating this today. Part of the reason the act had to be passed was because these illnesses are not treated the same as everyone else. And we are actually backsliding on it right now in our coverage of it. It is the right place to talk about health care. Keep in mind, health care was different then. Everybody got health care at home. Hospitals were only for the indigent. At this time, the first hospital in america, which was cocreated by Benjamin Franklin the idea was that doctors would take care of poor people. It was their responsibility to do that and they would do it for free. The people who are treated at home would pay them and that is how society would do that. Then slowly there were some institutions that were created before franklin died and then some created right afterwards because rush took his benjaminism very seriously and he wanted to continue these ideas of voluntary associations that would solve the problems. They created a free dispensary for Outpatient Care and then did did things like that. There is not a direct link, because as we were discussing, before the only part of the , federal government that took care of people the way we take care of people today was the military. So the military of course had those responsibilities and viewed it as such. Responsibilities. That is where most of our ideas about all kinds of care that comes from the federal government grows out of our original importance of taking care of soldiers. Rush wrote about that because he was on the battlefields of the revolutionary war and wrote not only about physical medicine but also ptsd on the battlefield. Amazing when you look at the revolution from a Doctors Point of view, the idea about where health care fits in a society and how important it is. The language sounds almost exactly the same. The challenge is exactly the same. The doctors of that era felt that it was as difficult as it is now. And they would have strong ideas to make sure that their idea was that everybody had to be taken care of. That was the responsibility of the medical community. And that was an incredibly important thing. But how to do that . Rush was always obsessed with , how do we do this . Not just, let me write about an essay about that we need to do this. But if i am a doctor, i have to know where to get the money had to take care of these patients. How do i do that . Fred sarah do you want to jump in here . Talk about colonial America Health care and who was in charge of it. Sarah sure. I think if we look at 18th, 19th century, early American Health care, we get a very different view. We might not see, i think, a rush at every home per se, but we would certainly see women like abigail adams, who were tasked with taking care of sick neighbors, relatives, anyone in their local community. And we would also see something a little different when it came to the role of people who werent doctors but cared a great deal about tending to the sick. Here i am thinking particularly about philanthropic and benevolent organizations. 1970s, you see this right here with the boston marine society. You have efforts afoot to create marine hospitals. The first thing that they want to do. When Alexander Hamilton drafts his first report on the public credit and submits it, he immediately starts thinking about things like health care, because built into that brilliant, multipage, complicated plan is a provision for the widows and children of disabled and sick sailors. Thinking about things like, this might resonate with us. How the economy is tied to health care, what role the government has. Where people who are not doctors but say other actors like benevolent associations and philanthropists also have the voice and ear of the health care system. Fred anyone else want to jump in on this Health Care Question . No. One of the so lets get back a little bit to how john Adams John Adams goes to philadelphia and he meets Benjamin Rush on his way to philadelphia. Benjamin rush warns him about what he is about to encounter. Stephen, do you want to pick up the story there . Stephen one of the Amazing Things about the story is that Benjamin Rush is like a 29yearold doctor, not in the Continental Congress. He goes out to meet adams because he is one of the sons of liberty. He coauthored the proclamation that led to the boston tea party. So he went out there and they were out of there, the massachusetts delegation figured they were going to run the congress. Rush said to them as did others in the pennsylvania delegation, if you dont put aside your belief that you think you should be in charge, even though you are right, and let the virginias virginias think they are running it, we are doomed. This is john adams first introduction to this. A young man, goodlooking young doctor who talks a lot, very opinionated. Rush make sure that they get in the same carriage together, they are in the same suburb of philly. So that rush could talk his ear off as they come into town. Rush and many of the other doctors in philadelphia took care of the congressman. So they would have him over for dinner. Adams originally thought rush was a good place to have food. In his letters he talks with to abigail that they serve really good melons at his house, he has a really good view of the delaware. And because John Dickinson will not vote for the declaration of independence, rush finds himself signing the declaration of independence. Then he and adams become friends. Their friendship is wonderful because their letters back and forth are terrific. He is also there doctor. Their doctor. So when she got cancer, rush is the one that forced her to have surgery. A local boston doctor says you can put some powder on her Breast Cancer and it will go away. Their letters are unbelievably personal. It is crushing when they are the same town of philadelphia for 10 years because there are no letters. And after the election of 1800, they dont speak for five years. Adams did not speak to hardly anybody for five years. Then he reached out to rush and he says, we should have some communication before one of us dies. From then on, for the next eight years, they write hundreds of letters to each other that are really a replay of our entire understanding of the American Revolution and what these two people had gone through. They are amazing letters. The rush kids and wives, their families read the ones they dont want them to see the ones that are critical of washington. The wives love it. Especially abigail is happy that john adams has something to do, and he will read these letters. During the course of these letters, we find out two things. Rush is trying to get john adams and Thomas Jefferson back together before one of them dies. Because he believes the biggest concern about partisanship and what it could do to america, rush said if partisanship can destroy the relationship between john adams and Thomas Jefferson, who thought of this country, what is the chance of our country . So he did what i consider to be sort of founding father family therapy. He wrote to both of them to try to get them back together. And one of his crowning achievements the year before he died was that they started writing again. Then wrote for another 13 years. And all of those letters that came after 1805, it is a whole new retelling of everything that happened in america. And a lot of it is driven by the friendship between rush and adams which is really just at a certain point in my biography i let the relationship between rush and adams take over the back of the book. There were so many letters and they were so interesting. Normally when you write a biography of people in their 50s and 60s, their careers are over, not a lot is going on. But in this case, these guys were having unbelievable dialogue, which we are still learning from today. Sarah put letters out the people didnt pay much attention to, from that time, and they will still change. One of the letters i got to use his letters change how Benjamin Rush died. Because the adams papers had a letter abigail got from rushs wife, which described what the last six months of his life was like. So his death scene and the end of his life gets rewritten because of one letter people did not Pay Attention to. Part of what i would say, the fact that this history is living, and that these people here are part of taking sure making sure that it is living, is incredibly important. And as we are invoking so often what the Founding Fathers said. Their quotes had become the tofu of american politics. It is really important to know what the context was for all of these oneliners that people are taking out of context. If you really want to know these people, get to know them in and get to know them in depth, at least on the subjects you care about. Fred sarah, anything to add on that . Sarah i think that we are blessed with a quarter of a million manuscript pages. The adams family papers, available in digital editions. Open to researchers like stephen and everyone here and watching. And i think really the adamsrush correspondence, which has just perked up again in the timeline that i am in, is near is near and dear to my heart. It is such a great cashe of the personal, public, and private. John adams is extremely unfettered in his commentary to Benjamin Rush. And because abigail is with him, i am missing some of that confidant flavor, so i turned to the rush letters for that, probably more than anything else. But they are remarkable as a pair, because when john adams just to bookend your story a little bit when john adams has returned to the United States, he had kind of an uneasy reintegration. Rush is there for him as a friend. And they have these wonderful letters that are very much gentleman scholar exchanges. Where they are not just thinking about the federal government, they are thinking about this kind of goes fullcircle to our opening conversation what america should look like. What is american identity to us and the world . What kind of education do need you need to be a senator . What qualifies you to be in the house of representatives . Serving the people . And what exactly should we do with the difference between executive authority, executive titles, and executive powers under the constitution . That all plays out in a lot of the adamsrush correspondence. Stephen plus, a lot of gossip. What is great about the letters is they will be unbelievably intellectual to a certain point, then unbelievably gossipy. Sarah deliciously gossipy. Please read them. Stephen one of the things that adam says repeatedly, is his disbelief on what has taken the place of kingship in america is fame. He cannot believe that fame is so important. He cant believe that Benjamin Franklin and George Washington are so much more famous than him. [laughter] stephen and so there is a rift that goes through the letters, he does it four or five times. His utter disbelief that history will remember that George Washington would smoke with Benjamin Franklins electric rod, and the two of them did everything, built the country , and saved the country. How was that going to go . We take for granted the other Founding Fathers. But i will tell you, in the history of history, adams did not matter as much i think until after the second world war. Sarah abigail or john . Stephen i think either of them. As characters in the public domain. That people in the public i mean, we grew up during the adams chronicles on pbs. With davids biography of john adams. But in the history of history, there is like a hundred years where so much of the writing about the revolution is mostly about, what did washington do . What did franklin do . And these other guys. Now we are getting more parity. People are going to look more at Benjamin Rush now that i wrote this book, which is nice but it is ridiculous. He was right there. If you told of founders that the story would be told without Benjamin Rush, i think they would be genuinely surprised. Fred there is a reason for that, right . Stephen there isstephen there. Part of the reason is that the letters between adams, jefferson, and rush, were so unbelievably personal that when rush died the founders came to the families and said, please dont let anybody read these letters. Jefferson had written about his feelings about religion. The letters back and forth between rush and jefferson about how their separation of church and state statements. And a lot of criticism of washington. And also a lot of personal things. The letter sent to rush asking to be the medical guide for lewis and clark, which he was. The second half of the letter was jefferson describing the current state of his diarrhea. And a long discussion about what treatments he might try, including sitting differently on his saddle and things like that. So they are peppered with a a lot of personal things having to do with family stuff. Keep in mind, rushs son had a , his oldest son who was a doctor had a psychotic break. , he ended up being a psychiatric patient, being taken care of by his father, living in a Psychiatric Hospital for 30 years. So they were also sharing dark tragedies. Adams lost a son to alcoholism, his daughter with Breast Cancer eventually did die. Rushs oldest son became mentally ill. They were also sharing the great pains of their time. Fred liz . Liz one thing this conversation has me thinking about is the importance that these founding documents and paper collections that these documentary editors, like sarah, put together for us have been very important. But it also makes you think about everyone else who participated and the different documents that are out there about them. There is a lot of exciting work going on around the fact that the founders were not the only people involved in creating a revolution and the nation. So, you know, you have historians working on there was a book published recently about the africanamerican patriots who served in the Continental Army and their reasons for doing so. You have rob parkinson, who published a book called the common cause, looking at how the patriots used media to bound everybody together saying that , enslaved people will revolt and native americans will massacre your town, so it was fear mongering, and they were using the press that way. Historians are starting to look they always have but they are really looking beyond the founders and looking at who else was involved to go back to that earlier point of who is we the people . Nathaniel i think this is a very interesting vein of conversation here. And it makes me really want to call out for everyone the work of remembering. And the way that our remembering of the founding era sits relative to our politics today. Right . These letters that stephen and sarah were talking about are part of the work that is happening in the first half of the 19th century of translating the events that people have participated in into a collective memory. Adams in particular is very interested in shaping a story of the American Revolution, which puts massachusetts in the driver seat because it is part of the sectional crisis which is beginning to manifest. That runs all the way through the antebellum period. Trying to say that the north was really driving the revolution was part of a larger project defining what the nation is as a nation in the image of massachusetts. At the same moment, black abolitionists are remembering the history of the American Revolution and the history of the boston massacre in particular. This is the 250th anniversary year of the boston massacre, actually. To call attention to someone of african descent. And they are using the story of the founding era as a way to respond to slaveholders who said black people cant be citizens. Because they cannot sacrifice on behalf of the nation. Therefore, you cannot end the institution of slavery, because what would you do with this group of former slaves who cant be made citizens . I just think we need to remember that when we talk about the founding era and we say the founders said or the founders told us, that we are telling a very particular story. Right . And we should be thoughtful in this moment about how broad we want that lens to be. We should respond to the idea of the founders with the question, which founders . Because you are absolutely right, it is a much more complex story. Fred on that note, i would like to open it up to the audience. If you would raise your hand, someone will come to you with a microphone, and feel free to ask away. Do you see anybody . Over here. Hi. Thank you so much. We talk about the political polarization. I am wondering, today some would argue that outside influences are trying to destabilize democracy, and that is causing this polarization. Is there any history of that from other countries other than england as the country started up . Liz france and spain very much wanted the United States to avoid making peace with Great Britain until france and spain had made their peace with Great Britain. So i think there has always been a history since the very founding of, you know, diplomacy and also negotiations of, you know, how involved the United States is going to be with foreign countries. Arent they going to be . And in that one instance, Benjamin Franklin, john adams, and john jay said we will deal with Great Britain without france at that time. Stephen one of Benjamin Rushs biggest problems was that one of the newspaper editors in philadelphia still thought that britain should win. So he covered things that way. Rush actually sued him and won. What is amazing is of course you have to remind yourself how insignificant america was at the time. We cant imagine a time america did not matter in that landscape. Of course there was foreign influence in our country. There was not that much here here. Our relationship with france, our relationship with britain were much more important in a lot of ways. And it definitely shows through the media in lots of ways. Rush and jefferson were associated with being french to the point that during the yellow fever epidemic, rushs treatment was considered the republican treatment, the french treatment. Because rush was friends with jefferson. And some of the divisiveness, by the way, i think many of these people blamed it on Alexander Hamilton. Regardless of the fact he has a musical and none of them do currently, he has a better publicist than the rest of them. Rush, adams, and jefferson all very much blamed hamilton for sort of fanning the flames of partisanship. And being kind of a bomb thrower in this era. And hamilton, during the yellow fever epidemic, announced he had yellow fever, and the cure that he was cured by somebody other than rush and the cure that he , had was the federalist cure. It really was unbelievably partisan, and a lot of it had to do with other countries. The image of being criticized for being too french after the french revolution was very common in the political writing in america, especially in the 1790s. Fred sarah . Sarah i think that there is an omnipresent fear of the french and british influence that is going to tear apart the First Federal government. Let me offer two quick, concrete examples. When john adams is serving as the first u. S. Minister to Great Britain, there are little paragraphs planted in the british press. He thinks by the loyalists, who are in london, who say america cannot even afford a minister, the french are paying his salary. So that is the first thing. And then the second thing, another concrete example would be that first meeting that congress has in federal hall in new york city. And when they come in and they gather, it is hastily put together, still under construction. They meet very briefly. But here are the two paintings that they sit beneath. Fulllength portraits of louis xvi and marie antoinette. That is what is hanging over congress. It is going to take a year or so before they commission a portrait of washington. And then they say, oh, we should probably put it next to where the king and queen of france are. So there is kind of a very concrete example of their of it there of it is not quite a bot that is plastering it into your feed. But a reminder of crafting those first policies and who funded you. And it is monarchical. So it is definitely something of concern, something we see in the letters when they are talking about possible british and french influence that is going to wrench apart what is already rising partisanship in that First Federal congress. Fred do you want to add anything about foreign interference . Nathaniel i would say that there actually are overtures on the transappalachian frontier from spain, actually inviting folks who are settled in the area that will become tennessee and kentucky to consider seceding and becoming part of spain. They are being offered access to the waterways of the mississippi in exchange for this. There are very direct machinations happening throughout the period. Liz and vermont was actively seeking, you know, should we be can we be part of the British Empire without being part of the United States if we get our own territory . So some of the foreign influence was invited too. Stephen i think people do not understand how long the Founding Fathers were not sure that it was done. The fact that they were going to knock down what became Independence Hall because no one had a sense of American History. I mean, Independence Hall was supposed to be knocked down and the liberty bell was supposed to be melted. It did not get down because of sloth. Then lafayette came back in 1825 and toward america. And suddenly it was safe to have American History, because america had been america long enough that it was actually going to be a country. And they started calling Independence Hall Independence Hall during the time he came. Before that it was the old statehouse that they were going to tear down someday soon. You have to remember that. It wasnt fear. And i dont think it was fear. I think they were being realistic that it was an experiment and it still could not work out. I think part of their optimism that we still inherit really came from. It is not what we were taught in history books, the revolutionary war was over and everything was being built up and it was all fine everything was great. , it was really always hanging by a thread because of the incredible ambition of what they wanted to do, that had never been done before and they knew that. Fred sarah, you wanted to add something . Sarah i was connecting those comments to think about how highly fluid boundaries were in that founding era. So what counts as foreign exactly is a huge question, the american navigation of the mississippi seems like something on the table depending on who we are dealing with. So i think thinking about those really spicy, complex boundary disputes that started in the colonial period and wont be resolved for some time are part is worth thinking about in terms of foreign influence, thinking about the evolution of the statehood process itself. Internally what that means. Relations with native americans, things like that. Fred any questions on the balcony by any chance . Oh yeah. Ok. Great. Thank you. Quick question. As you are talking, i just want to know for my general education, what percentage of the population was not part of the we in we the people at the time . Well, by sex, half. In philadelphia, the africanamerican population was i think 5 or 10 at most. And then some of the cities had native american populations as well, so maybe and then you have the classes. Its the same, 1 , right . Its a decided minority if we are talking about the right to vote, which is what i think we should be talking about in this context. And for africanamericans, it is different depending on where you are. In the south, the issues are mostly about slavery. Benjamin rush was very much involved in the africanamerican community. He helped build the first two free black churches. They were in philadelphia. In philadelphia, while there was slavery, the Biggest Issue in philadelphia was remaining free, after the fugitive slave act, and two, there was prejudice against them that came. That is why they had to start their own churches. Africanamericans worshiped in churches with mixed parishioners and then were being told they had to worship on the balconies. And when they wanted to start their own churches, Benjamin Rush drew up the first plan, the white churches were mad that it made them look like they were prejudiced. So keep in mind thing to keep in , one mind is abolition is incredibly important as a subject. But in many northern cities, the biggest racial issue day in and day out was making sure that free blacks had rights. Rush went on to make sure that they had educations, that they were taught as part of the Public School systems. So even these bigpicture issues are different in different states at different times. But our fear that the 1 controls everything, i bet if went back and asked people during the founding era, they would say that the 1 controlled everything then, too, and they were all the guys in the Continental Congress. It is important to underscore the point by saying, there are many, many different Interest Groups who worked together during particular moments, but perhaps two different ends. Withevolutionary era ends the revolution settlement which satisfies some but leaves most unsatisfied, and if we leave the group of those who end up without rights but who are still advocating for them out of the picture, then we put them in the position of having to ask from the outside for permission to enter the american story. If we say the revolutionary period was itself an era of debate, gives us a momentary revolution settlement but doesnt end the debate, it is different. So in boston, in 1774, a large group of people of color come forward using the natural rights language that two years later will be in the declaration of independence to petition for an end to slavery. They are in the story prior to the declaration of independence, asking for their rights demanding their rights. ,it is not that boy, first we , get a set of documents are in imperfect, good for some and then people have to come along and say lets expand the circle. Folks were asking for a broader circle from the beginning. And if we cant recognize that, really lose what is important about this story. Point of, back to the saying which founders. Because all of those outside we the people are founders too, but , we tend to not give them that credit. Want to add anything . I think its been pretty wellcovered. Anyone else . How about right here . We talk a lot about the politics and compromises, but how did the Founding Fathers what amazes me is how the Founding Fathers get through two different economic systems that existed in the colonies. In the south, the economy was based on slavery. In the north, not as much. How did they get there . There is a lot of research coming out now. Seth brockman at brown is working on a book that shows northern complicity in slavery. So, even though you could make an argument that the economies are slightly different, they are all intertwined. In new england, they were making brooms and clothes, things that enslaved people would wear and use, tools used in the fields. Further in history new england , is buying the cotton to use in their mills. I do think its a negotiated process, but i think the two economies are more intertwined than we have seen previously. I also think it is better to think of america even up through almost the civil war as being a combination of states and not the way we look at it today as a actual federal country. Because day in and day out i think the states made more difference. Comeser states rights up, say you are interested in Mental Illness like i whenever am. The federal government does not want to be involved in Mental Illness, we go back to the states. Because the states have to actually take care of the people with medicine. The statefederal thing has always existed, but keep in mind that there was so much less federal. Before the interstate Commerce Commission in the late 1800s what passes for the federal government is almost unrecognizable to what we see today. Keep in mind when we look at National Trends, i am not sure that there was a national. Argue the things, i would even more, not just a look at the founders but to look at more and more characters of the founding era. Lives, andir actual not trying to make them part of bigger trends. But to try to really understand their lives. Because im not sure we had National Trends back then. As much as we want to look at them. They are incredibly important. Keep in mind slavery was off the , table because of the deal to create the national bank. It was not being debated as a subject that we would get rid of slavery during all that time. All i am saying is to keep in mind it is a state world with a small federal government going on. Not the washington we have today. Actually thank goodness. [laughter] up here. Balcony. Something that is pretty divisive right now is the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. So, curious on your thoughts on what the founders definition would have been . [laughter] not my area of expertise. [laughter] liz, have you covered this in your 200, almost 300 podcast episodes . You know, we havent covered impeachment so much. I know george mason and Benjamin Franklin were proponents of impeachment. I know that they looked at precedents in english law, what determine what parts of english law they wanted to keep in american law and which they wanted to dispense with. One thing they decided to keep was the language of high crimes and misdemeanors. But they looked very closely at what it meant for treason, because in england there was a quote associated with treason and they did not want to execute anybody for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. So my understanding is they picked that term because it could be broad, and what they were trying to do was say, if you, you know, in the case of the executive undermining the power, Peoples Trust in the government, the governments ability to work, you could list Something Like that under high crimes and misdemeanors. But clearly people are debating that today, all sorts of legal scholars who are more qualified than me. And theres a lot of debate. Also, keep in mind the role of the executive. Adams got caught in the middle of it, but obviously the first president was washington. He was not really an elected president. He was like the most famous guy in america, and of course he was going to be president. But the issue of who a president should be after washington wasnt going to be president really fell on adams in a big way. The endless debate about whether john adams thought the president should be a king or a president i think is part of what people talked about what was right and wrong with the executive without talking about the word impeachment, but really what the role of the executive was going to be. Because the First Executive was not a person. He was somebody who was really revered. Adams was the first one to actually have to be president and think about what a president has to do. I think the language criticizing him gives you an idea that people did not know either as soon as it was not washington. Thats certainly true. Washington was a hard act to follow. John adams had been Vice President. Americans had never had a Vice President before. They were not entirely sure what the job entailed, neither did he and neither did the constitution. So he stepped into a job and a career path in many ways he had except inanticipated the abstract. So, we often see sort of a struggle in john adams between what he thought in theory about executive power and crime and treason and alien and sedition acts type topics and what he did in practice. I think that actually humanizes him a great deal and reminds us why president ial history should be about pointing out the flaws in the marble rather then making more monuments to these men sometimes. Lets see. How about over here . Hang on wait for the microphone. , when the Founding Fathers created this nation, they were obviously there were obviously a smaller set of states to account for. So the needs of those states may not have been fully aligned, but were maybe a little more similar than maybe some are now. In the letters that you have read or other primary sources, were their conversations about how the nation would expand and how they might account for the varying different needs that might come about and weighing the balance of decisionmaking . I was thinking of the northwest ordinance. The one success historians will say of the articles of confederation is that congress outlined the northwest ordinance to add states, what we think of the midwest into the union. , it has been followed and adopted since. There were provisions, but they were exact. This is how much square miles, how many people you need to vote for statehood, this is the process of voting for statehood. It is not, how do we overcome all these regional differences . You can look at texas, right . They have their own revolution, and they want into the union because the texas republic is failing. At first the United States government is like no, we are , not going to admit texas. Later, for political reasons, it becomes advisable to admit texas, so they do. But that is as far as i got on that. But the true and deep challenge with expansion really revolves around the institution of slavery and what its disposition in the territories is going to be. That just points out there is so much variation between the states, but there are fundamental factors that divide and cut across. Whether ohio is going to be like massachusetts or new jersey and in its system of farming is really not as critical as the question of whether the institution of slavery will find a home north of the ohio river. And that is the point on which the politics of westward expansion divide, even in the early stages of national expansion. So it just points back to this question, that we have t really fundamentally unresolved debates coming out of the revolutionary era that ripple down to our own time. And attendant with the interest in expansion in the letters, we have a similar focus on something we talked about in the beginning, the question of the american character they are creating. Because along with all the land opening up in pennsylvania and ohio, you have speculators, squatters, the question of how you are going to defend it. Does that mean we need a standing army, the thing that colonial americans have always feared and rejected . How will we pay for a navy, how will we defend and hold this land . Theres a lot of questions of purpose and character tied up in expansion. And we do see that play out in the letters, along with this incredible, wild optimism that america is going to be, you know, first among the powers of the earth. America is going to show europe how it is done, both in government and in culture. And to come out of a fairly bloody revolution with that kind of optimism i think is remarkable. I am always surprised by the founders in the 1790s and early 1800s, that they havent gotten tired yet. That all the partisanship they are so sure that they are right. But they are also ready to keep talking to people who think they are right, but in a completely different way. So theres a commitment to conversation, to dialogue. That we see with them that stretches past the revolution. And that always surprises me, that energy. It keeps me reading as a historian. One of the bases of your question is whether these things that came later really represented different challenges to the country than the original challenges. I would say that a good rule of thumb is if you are not seeing things that went on in the original 13 states, you are not looking hard enough. Because i do think the challenges of america were hardwired into the first 13 states that did this, and every aspect of it just comes from increasing size, increasing population. But i think most of the issues were already there and they are expanded upon by expansion of space, science, technology, and expansion of the economy. But i think that they are all there in the beginning and it is easy to look hard at them. If you look at the letters, these guys are talking about this stuff. It seems modern, but its a much smaller space. 13 clocks striking at once. We have time for one more question. Maybe somebody, ok, very good. My question had been asked. But with the opposition so much to king george, how did that affect each of these founders views of the presidency . I will take a go at that one. I think one of the most remarkable moments in john adamss career is when he considers the revolution finally over. When he is standing outside george iiis bedchamber ready to credentials from the brandnew United States of america. This for him marks the moment when he, someone who certainly would have been executed for treason as a patriot for going against his monarch is now facetoface, if not as an equal , as a credentialed representative from a legitimate country. And its hard not to wonder what that first set of conversations was like. Fortunately, we have some sense of it from his letters home to john jay and its remarkable to think of these two men, well educated, a couple years apart, maybe 50something guys, who are coming from such very different ends of the political spectrum, from opposite sides of the revolution, but bring us back to this idea of how we compromise and deal with political polarization. There it is. Hes able to have a conversation with his former king. So i think that trajectory tells us something about the capacity for dialogue between revolutionary and monarch in a really unique way. Would one of you like to have some closing comments . So we can kind of come to the end of the discussion here. Yeah, so it has been a very interesting conversation. And i just want to come back to the point of memory. We remember part of the founding story most often when we talk about the founders, and we have revisited this story over and over in each generation. And our country is going to be celebrating the 250th anniversary of independence in 2026. And so, lets think about the opportunity to engage in a thoughtful dialogue about what this history means to us today and how it sits relative to our own ability to define ourselves as a nation moving forward. We have a remarkable opportunity to use the history as an opportunity to come together across our divides during these next six years, and i really hope we can do that. And we should do so. Here in boston we have a great opportunity to set a model for our national discourse. I think that is absolutely true. I loved that question earlier, because i was thinking any document that begins we the people is a living document. We have a chance to change and evolve it through the history we write and work that we do. I think i would add to that comment, investigate all of the perspectives of the founding era. Really get a good look at the primary sources. We have a terrific exhibit up right now at the Massachusetts Historical Society that brings together different voices from the boston massacre, and i would encourage you to check it out in conjunction with the revolutionary spaces you described. I do not claim to have the expertise of everybody on this panel. I wrote a biography of one of the Founding Fathers. He was my excuse to learn about this entire period, because he was a great observer of the entire period. But one thing i learned writing first of all, people like sarah and with the other president ial Paper Products are so projects are so invaluable to history. And you would be amazed at how much history is not that research. That it is more based on somebodys intellectual idea than it is about a real interest in getting to know characters. I know from spending time with Benjamin Rush, who hasnt written about much until recently, that there is so much more to learn about him and around him. Some of this hits on issues of not only Mental Health and health care, slavery, abolition issues and Racial Division issues. People have made all their own decisions about these things based on very Little Research or sometimes wikipedia research. So i would say, if you want to dig into any of the founders, whether they are wellknown ones or just people from the founding era who are fascinating to you, keep in mind you might be the first person to really ask certain questions, ever. Because the stars get all of the attention. And a lot of the questions have not been asked about some of the people who are equally interesting. I would just say, dont assume everything you read from the past is right, because history is written in the era of the historian writing. So keep in mind, when you are worried about prejudice about class, prejudice about race, who the people were who wrote the history book. What era they were from when they were writing. I had to make a lot of adjustment writing about rush, just for the timing of when the books were written and what the normal was during that time. History has a life in itself, and you have to keep that in mind if you really want to know what the founders represented to each generation and what they should represent for us today. History tells us who we are and how we came to be who we are, and they say a good history book will tell you just as much about the past it is written about as the time it was written in. And i think one of the exciting things about the 250th anniversary of the revolution is how exciting and complicated it is. I mean, it was a very complicated event. Every generation gets to see a little bit more of the complexities and different stories of participants. And i think we will see a lot of exciting work coming out. From a podcasters perspective , that is really exciting news. Thank you all very much for the great, great conversation, and thank you to all of you for being here and your questions. And also, obviously the edward m. Kennedy institute and the Massachusetts Historical Society for hosting this terrific panel. [applause] [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] this is American History tv, on cspan3, where each weekend we feature 48 hours of programs exploring our nations past. Every saturday night, American History tv takes you to College Classrooms around the country for lectures in history. Why do you all know who Lizzie Borden is . Raise your hand if you had ever heard of this murder, the jean harris murder trial, before this class . Where we find the true meaning of the revolution was in this transformation that took place in the minds of the american people. So we will talk about both of these sides of the story here, right . The tools and techniques of slaveowner power, and we will also talk about the tools and wereiques of power that practiced by enslaved people. Watch history professors lead discussions with their students on topics from the American Revolution to september 11th. Lectures in 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. [applause] happy earth day [applause] this song was written 20 years ago born in the summer of he left yesterday behind him, you might say he was born again, you might say he found a key for every door when he first came to the mountains his life was far away on the road and hanging by a song broken strings already and he doesnt really care keeps changing fast, and it dont last for long but the colorado Rocky Mountain high ive seen it raining fire in the sky the shadow from the starlight is softer than a lullaby Rocky Mountain high, colorado Rocky Mountain high, colorado mountains,cathedral saw silver clouds below he saw everything as far as you can see and they say that he got crazy once and tried to touch the sun and he lost a friend but kept his memory solitude,ks in quiet the forest and the streams seeking grace in every step he takes has turned inside himself to try and understand the serenity of a clear Blue Mountain lake the colorado Rocky Mountain high rain fire in the sky you can talk to god and listen to the casual reply Rocky Mountain high, colorado Rocky Mountain high, colorado his life is full of wonder but his heart still knows some fear of a simple thing he cannot comprehend why they try to tear the mountains down to bring in a couple more more people, more scars upon the land and the colorado Rocky Mountain high ive seen it raining fire in the sky i know he to be a poorer man if he never saw an eagle fly Rocky Mountain high its a colorado Rocky Mountain high ive seen it raining fire in the sky campfire andd the everybodys high loradomountain high, co radoy mountain high, colo Rocky Mountain high, colorado ky mountain high, [applause] covered over seven hours of this rally on the 20th anniversary of the first earth day. You can watch more on our website, including appearances by richard gere, tom cruise, the indigo girls and ll cool j, by going to www. Cspan. Org history and typing 1990 earth day rally in the search bar. Tonight on q and a, how a videogame developer is bringing peace and conflict resolution through the refugee experience to a wider audience. My country is a country that has problems. These are all young people who were born in war, so life is as rough as you come, and all you think about is war. So i thought, what if the young people from south sudan played these games . In the videogame is the same thing happening in my country, killing people. This is how things are done. I thought, what about a game for peace, conflict resolution . Tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspans q a. 50 years ago on april 30, 1970 president Richard Nixon in a white house address announced u. S. And south Vietnamese Forces would attack north vietnamese military bases on cambodia along the border with south vietnam. The announcement led to a new wave of protests on campuses across the nation, and may of that year Security Forces shot and killed unarmed student protesters, four at Kent State University in ohio and two at Jackson State College in mississippi. Good evening my fellow americans, i announced the decision to withdraw an additional 150,000 americans from vietnam over the next year. I said then that i was making that decision despite our concerns over can increased enemy activity in laos, cambodia, and south vietnam. At that time i warned that if i concluded increased enemy activity in any of those areas endanger the lives of americans remaining in vietnam, i would