Cspan. Org history. A healthy democracy does not look just like this, it looks like this. Americans can see democracy at work. Get informed straight from the source on cspan. Unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the Nations Capital to wherever you are, to get the opinion that matters the most, is your own, this is what democracy looks like. About, thf welcome to the Washington Times for this special episode of history as it happens podcast. We are doing a special series of episodes about the declaration of independence. Why the declaration of independence again . The subject may be old, the issues are fresh. The American Revolution its current events. I got that line from our guest today. Hello denver bronfman historian from George Washington university. Thank you for being here. Thank you for asking me. You are the guy who teaches classes at George Washington at the university named after him and you teach at mount vernon as well. Tell us more. Im the professor and chair at the History Department of George Washington university. I get to teach classes on Early American History including the American Revolution, the war of 1812, and George Washington and his world which takes place in his world at mount vernon estate for gw students. On the other hand, George Washington didnt sign the declaration, what a slacker. He was getting ready to fight the british. He was in new york, welcoming, intercepting the largest armada of soldiers and sailors to ever cross the atlantic to that point prayed about 30,000 british soldiers were arriving in new york. Around this time the planning was underway, the invasion of canada as well. A lot of people do not realize we have lexington and concorde in the spring of 1775, this was a con of the war by july of 1776 it was happening up and down the east coast and all the way into canada and into the southern colonies. June the prior year was the battle of bunker hill. The war was underway for a year. Maybe i need to find a john hancock professor because he had the signature. I open the podcast by saying how the American Revolution is teaching current events, thats what you told me. What do you mean . When i talk to students, one thing that we detected today what we need to do is, i do not think there is a more relevant event in American History than the American Revolution. We live in a society and with the frame of government that it created. A lot of our politics today, a lot of the same issues go back to that. You see these patterns. If you can clue students into that, they see the past in a different way, but you see your own world in a different way. We still inhabit the political world of these 18th century views. That is why we are having this conversation and look back to this moment. Not that events were frozen in time. There was a civil war 18 years later. I often raised a question with some of my guests, why do we go back to the founders or the framers of the constitution, the revolutionaries of the 1770s for guidance and advice on how to frame legislation today, for guidance in our culture war, these premodern, predarwin men. It is not really a profound question or answer, we are still on their constitution unlike the french say who may talk about napoleon they are on their 18th or Something Like that. As americans we can point to the start of the country, these are the people that created it. They continue to influence us. Margaret thatcher, the former Prime Minister britton said the countries of europe were forged by history, meaning they formed organically over time. United states was formed by philosophy. Formed at a specific moment in time. A nation founded on ideas. Many stories are based on ethnicity, religion, culture, religion, whatever. We will get into if we can point to a single date, some say 6019 is a better date rather than 1776. For most of my relatively short life, the revolutionary era has a place in our consciousness, not necessarily a source of unity but a common story, and origin story that was a source of inspiration for all americans since, regardless of what jefferson and his pen with the editing of adams and franklin when he wrote those famous words, timeless immortal words, regardless of what they meant at the time, those words were a source of inspiration for all of us. While the civil war is the one that continues to divide us. Do you see the revolution as a source of division now too . A little bit. It is something that most americans embrace. I think everyone can find something that is inspiring. I think the job of scholars and research has shown that there are problematic things in our past, even things in our past that we embrace and i think that is true with the declaration. The declaration and the revolution of which it was a part was not complete. You can make the argument, and i do, it kicked off the anti slavery cause in this country, the first of its kind prayed it was not perfect, all wars are horrible and it affects the average people more than the elites. Something that you mentioned to me when we were preparing to get together, the declaration was part of a long progressive tradition in our country and a source of inspiration. Martin luther king, at the march in washington, that anniversary is coming up this year when the architect of our public wrote the decorative independence they were signing a promissory note to which every american was to fall error. We have come to cash this check. 1848, seneca falls, Elizabeth Cady stanton, her declaration of sentiments was read and adopted modeled after the declaration of independence. September two, 1945 you know where im going with this . I do pray vietnam. Chi minh declared independent republic of vietnam and hanoi in front of a massive audience. They were trying to recolonize vietnam. The first lines of his speech repeat verbatim the second paragraph of he did not change it or it. I think what jefferson writes those words and they are adopted by the Continental Congress in july of 1776, all men are created equal. Since then, into groups in American Society did not want to express inequality wanted a piece of that. Whether it was marginalized people of color, women, you mentioned seneca falls, the declarations that all men and women are created equal. It was a beacon, it was a goal for different groups. I think it is still true. It is used in different social movements. It is powerful and inspiring words. It is a fair question, referring to my somewhat tangled question what they meant versus the inspiration that came later. It is a fair, what they meant using man, all men are created equal that they mean only males are all human beings. You can get into the semantics but what is your take . I see this in two ways. This is the age of enlightenment , they talk and universals. At one level jefferson is saying, certainly all men and all humans. I think it is an abstract level. I think in reality, certainly in jeffersons reality, that phrase, if written in legalistic sense would say all white men are created equal. That was the gauge of the different groups from the revolution but they were not equal. Throughout time other folks have taken those words and thought of them in universal ways. Another one was Abraham Lincoln and the gettysburg address. When he quotes justin he sang all men, black and white, are created equal. One thing we should be grateful for is our country was born in this time of enlightenment and these ideals of universal liberty. I want to get into the philosophical underpinnings or inspiration for the writers of the declaration in a moment. The title of the series of podcast that i am doing of history as it happens is the radical declaration. Was the declaration radical . What would you mean by radical if you agree . I think it was radical. That does not mean that it was completely original. It is drawing on a lot of things. The document that is most underrated that it draws on is the virginia decoration of rights penned primarily by george mason which happened in june of 1776. It also declared all men equal and it uses the phrase happiness. They did not mean like im happy today but as in contentment, satisfying life. Satisfying, quality of opportunities, business of chance. We do not have a debate from the second Continental Congress about the words of all men are created equal. We do not know if they said that goes too far. We do have evidence discussed in the Virginia Legislature and there was blowback and discussion, what do we mean . Enslaved people . What are we saying. Certainly virginia did not into slavery, but they decided to go with this universal enlightenment. I think that was the same decision made by the second Continental Congress. Jack argued that the authors meant americans as a people were entitled to the same rights of selfgovernment as other nations of the earth. The way we talk about it today, we all have certain civil liberties, which we have discussed already but can you elaborate . You are right about the moment. I think different documents are interpreted over time, they have a life of their own and i think that happened with the declaration and that is the most exciting thing. As you teach American History the thing that is need for students is to show how over time different groups come under this umbrella of equality and we the people and these great phrases and our founding documents, which might have been limited at the time but have been more expansive. They did not have chi minh in mind. But it did inspire other nations. Maybe this has happened to you in your writings, you mean something but someone later on says i interpret this differently. That is true. Certainly today, we americans, despite what i said before but the revolution, we can talk later about it whether it was a proslavery revolution, about whether the revolution is a source of unity or division. For the most part americans see it as a common story of our origins and a source of inspiration. We tend to project our own ideas back on those men as if they were writing for the ages. Do you get the sense that they were writing for all time . They were mortal men. I think they know they are on the stage of history. They were thinking long term and a lot of the letters they were writing, i think they expected people to read them someday, they certainly saved them. I think that is true the declaration. Jefferson and the committee who puts together the declaration and the congress who approves it , they did two things. There was a shot of prosperity and rhetoric in the beginning, thats what they were going for. But there was brass knuckle politics where they wanted to persuade the American People that this was the right course. And they wanted to attract other nations, critically france, to support their cause. They are doing some pragmatic, problems there. They had been tilting towards independence for a while. We will return to that in a minute but i want to stay on this level. How do your students react to this when you talk about the declaration the way we are discussing it . Are they excited . Or do they roll their eyes and say they did not mean that . That is a good question. Young people are naturally skeptical. That is something that i enjoy, they always keep you on your toes. This is a class, when i teach the American Revolution, it never has trouble enrolling, it fills up. People are eager to learn about it. Students are hungry for the complexity. I think if they get the complexity , and if they learn the full story, even if some of it is not flattering to the country, i think it makes them appreciate the ideals that we have been talking about. Then they feel like this is honest, no one is forcing me to believe this. We have only talked about the opening third of the declaration created by the way i give you a copy of the decorative independence. I went to the National Archives today and there was a guy standing this out. As long as it was not nicholas cage. I have not seen that movie. The grievances that are listed, these do not hold up as well to scrutiny. I want to talk to you about the grievances. This is my interviewing style, i am kind of amazed you never know where you are headed. We will return to grievances in a moment, about radicalism. I think we need to remember radicalism. That is why i opened the podcast by saying the subject is old but the ideas are fresh. The idea that fundamental human quality can be the guiding principle of the nation. No one articulate is better than gordon would. I have his book here, as you know eyesight books during my podcast. I cite my sources as a journalist would and i also want to encourage people to read these books. This is the introduction of this book. The revolution did more than legally create the United States , it transformed American Society. Changes were radical and extensive. It is a focus on what we are apt to do today on what the revolution did not accomplish. To highlight the failures to abolish slavery for instance. We missed the great significance of what it did accomplish. It is possible that the anti slavery and the womens rights movements, and all of our current egalitarian thinking, erotically changed personal and social relationships of people including the position of women. It destroyed aristocracy that had been understood in the western world, it brought respectability and dominance to ordinary people long held in contempt and gave dignity to menial labor and that was undocumented in history. To sum that up, the colonists, now american citizens, viewed themselves as citizens rather than subjects. It was a revolution that reordered society. People started to think about themselves and their relationship to others and their government differently. Absolutely. I could teach a class. That is very good. I think it changed from subject to citizen, it does show the transformation and it was revolutionary. The subject and the crowns are an equal. This was in all society with different positions based on birth. A citizen, by definition, is equal periods as you say it is transforming society. I am a friend of gordon would, it is a fabulous book and an amazing scholar. I think one critique would be there is a lot happening in that. With groups that were not included in the definition of citizen who were actually radical to. I think the revolution was more radical in many respects that was not written about in that book. In terms of African Americans and their freedom of equality, women being included, it just shows how powerful these ideas were. Enslaved africans were not included, we know. Shortly after the revolution we started to see free black societies in the north where slavery starts to give away and they were putting together petitions and petitioning their local government and State Government and showing up to the First Congress saying lets get rid of slavery. It took another 80 years, at least on a national level. These radical impulses, even if they did not include them in day one, it was not like they were able to start running it immediately i think jefferson, who was probably the most democratic of all of the founders thought that they had a place in society. There was a level. This is something that wood writes about. It is kind of a pandoras box that the founders opened. They are elites and most of them are elitist and they did not envision regular people participating in government, certainly not in an equal way. That is what happens within a generation after the revolution, that is the point, white men who had no sort of equality in europe and particularly in britain, with experiences that in the United States. It is easy to fall into the trap of scrutinizing the founders personal lives and calling them hypocrites, we do lose sight of the bigger picture. Both things can be true, Thomas Jefferson was hypocritical because he was a lifelong slave owner and only freed a handful of slaves, they were his flesh and blood for the most part. We agree, the declaration was radical. It is not a long document, neither is the constitution, i think that is why it is great. It is brief, the brevity makes it powerful. I have this book over here about the enlightenment it is about 900 pages long. They fit the declaration of independence in two pages. Most people have not read the list of grievances probably since High School College history classes. I want to get into the opening line that was penned by jefferson with the help of adams and franklin. We talked about if they knew they were writing for the ages. What was their inspiration . Some people read these opening words, lets see, the separate and equal stations which natures god entitle them. Any reference to god often has some people saying that is a reference to christianity or religion and it wasnt. This was john locke. Historians have gone back and forth about how important he was in influencing the American Revolution. He seems to have made a comeback lately. What this denver bronfman say about john lockes influence . Jefferson is a master synthesis. He brings together all of these enlightenment ideas and certainly locke , that is one of the primary things he is drawing from. He is also drawing from the scottish enlightenment, people like adam smith, some of the writings of inequality comes from them. Rankling made a critical edit in the declaration, the original words said we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that is jeffersons language and franklin said no, we hold these truths to be self evident. That is straight from scottish moral sense velocity. You just know these things as a human being. Such a small edit they are introducing a whole other branch of philosophy. If it it is selfevident why do you have to say it your applying common sense. Absolutely. Locke, yes. What about classical antiquity. I mentioned i have this massive book here about the enlightenment. This was written a couple of years ago, im going back to page 708 we are not making this up. Historians to historical and intellectual narratives one is the influence of locke, the other is the lasting importance of classical republican theories , classical antiquity, plato for instance, although plato is not a democrat. I think john adams realized that plato was not the equality area he imagined him to be. Whereby, the republic depends on civic virtue and demands that of all of its citizens. Bernard, in his seminal work and the ideological origins of the American Revolution says that classical antiquity was windowdressing. Yes, all enlightened and educated in, jefferson did know the classics, many of those at the time, kind of like what we do now on the internet we pull off something we find to dress up our arguments without understanding it it do you agree . Different scholars are working on this, this is a term in history that is contested ground. How deep are they into the ancients and classical. . It is kind of like the entry card into some of these debates. You have to show that you are familiar. Even George Washington who never read latin or agreed was getting the secondhand English Version of these things and using that in these letters. It was a sign of credibility. They were not trying to create a new sparta. I think he and others like him, were these enlightened ideas audible at the level of ordinary citizens . The summer of 76 and Public Opinion is still not quite sure where it is going when it comes to declaring independence, the war has been underway for a few years our ordinary citizens talking about locke . Maybe not locke but some of the other parts of the declaration that jefferson is writing about. They are reaching the broader public, the declaration is being read publicly in different laces. Regular people might not know the origin of these ideas, but they sound good. If you live in a society in which you are impoverished, you are not born into a station of inequality with other people and all of a sudden people are telling you that you are equal you are equal to the highest level of society to George Washington or king george the third was part of it. It is an idea that regular people understand. Comes out in january of 76 that had a profound on ordinary people. Common sense, youre right, the second most printed book in the history of the colonial. Right after the bible. For every copy of it historians figured several people are reading it because it was in coffee houses and taverns and it was passed around. It helped to move hearts and minds. The members of congress, i do not think that he was telling them anything they did not know. Politics works today that pressure can come from below and we see that happening with payne. Shortly after between april and june of 1776 there is almost 90, there have been 88 accounted, 88 local declarations have been attempted. These are different communities, colonies, associations all writing saying we should be independent. They are trying to instruct their delegates and representatives at the Continental Congress and state legislature that this is what we believe. While payne may not have affected Thomas Jefferson jefferson is affected by these ideas and local declarations and he is affected by george mason, it is all in the air. Where did the Continental Congress get its legitimacy from . They met in autumn of 1774. The idea of having the congress is highly controversial, the crisis had been underway for many years already. Less than two years they declare independence. It seems like they got there legitimacy from the provincial assemblies that replaced royal rule and the different colonies , the 13 states that we called them later on, but congress was superior to them and had supremacy when it came to political decisions. That is the debate that continues on. There is a article of federation in the 1780s, it is like so much of america, it is funny but true, it is made up. It was created just like the country was created. The Continental Congress was not a standing organization. It was not created by parliament. It was put together by the different colonies. You are right, it gets its authority because the colony says they have authority by sending delegates. The first Continental Congress that youve mentioned, more the delegates had been to london then philadelphia. That shows what they had in common was this british identity. They do not even think of themselves as americans, they were provincial. It would take time for them to embrace the term american. Samuel adams, if im not mistaken, the first time he left massachusetts to go to the first Continental Congress and philadelphia. They were like provincial provincials. We start at 30,000 feet of talking the big picture and enlightenment ideas and now we will get to the ground level and talk about more pragmatic concerns that the delegates at the Continental Congress, we can call them the leaders of the revolution at this point, what they are thinking about and grappling with. The grievances. You told me scholars are paying more attention to the grievances rather than the opening third of the document. I think there are a few Different Reasons why they are focusing on the grievances. One has to do with how the academy works. People have written about the declaration for so many years and we are expected to come up with new insights and new knowledge. I think in the 70s with the bicentennial and into the 1980s , there are a lot of books that argue that one person influences jefferson more than anyone else. I think the consensus is he was influenced by a lot of things. Scholars have moved on and they are looking at the grievances. One advantage is that it will get you more into the events on the ground, things that happened in the 1760s and 1770s. What they did, there is a litany of complaints about the king not so much parliament. If you do not mind me interjecting , why did they feel like in this very Public Document that they had to make a break with king george when the crisis was about parliament . There were a couple of things going on. This is very much modeled, speaking of inspiration, on the english bill of rights, which was written in 1689, right after the glorious revolution. This is the way English Speaking people declare independence. Is separate from the king. The other thing is, it is a product of what happened in the 1670s, they say they will no longer follow parliament. They still recognize the authority of the king. That was the last connection to the British Empire and there is a fair argument to be made that the american colonist were more loyalist than the people in england. For a long time they loved the english monarchy, even more than anybody. The same thing today. Just read the tabloids at the supermarket. I did not watch the coronation of whoever the king is now. In true american sense, the honor and privilege and this pageant of putting a crown on a guy, that is my own bias showing. King george the third was a very popular figure. Very popular. Even george ii, who was his grandfather still did not speak english, these were german born kings. George iii was the first to do so, george ii was a malign figure and he was not that popular. When he died, the americans are so sad, they are forlorn, there were all these sermons about how great george ii was there was all this hope for george iii and that quickly dissipates given the different policies. There was something 28 or 27 grievances. Almost all of them almost all of them begin with he, he has refused, he has forbidden, he has refused, he has dissolved, he has refused, he has endeavored. Andrew roberts wrote a favorable biography of george iii. The nice thing about a book is when you are done reading it you can use it as a doorstop. He has the a writing about george iii. He is more admirable towards george iii than other scholars are. He says the declaration of independence simultaneously grotesquely hypocritical, illogical and sublime. The part that he refers to as mendacious are the grievances. Particularly the one blaming that did not make it into the declaration, the that made it to the final grievance. He decided amongst us and has decided to bring about the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless indian savages whose rule of warfare is a undistinguished discussion of all ages. That is a little hyperbole. That is the part we do not read at july 4th picnics. On the one hand jefferson is saying the king is inciting slave revolts and also citing indian warfare. This is a ex post facto densification for a revolution that is underway. Would you agree . When you look at the grievances, i talked about the hard politics they were trying to attract supporters, i think we would say today that this is racist language. This is terrible language against native americans. When he is saying he is inciting against domestic interactions he is talking about slave rebellions, particularly in virginia and the governor of virginia to free African Americans. This is part of our revolution that makes it fascinating and complex. The majority of African Americans and native americans at that time sided with britain. This is one of those things again, teaching students, they are excited to learn and it opens their mind. Many thousands of enslaved black people were emancipated as a result of the revolutionary war. That is different than trying to say the british were trying to and the institution of slavery or that any colonist fought the revolution, declared independence, broke with the crown to defend slavery. This is my problem with the 1619 project. It takes real evidence and draws a false conclusion. The American Revolution was not a proslavery revolt despite what jefferson wrote in grievance number 27. One thing that i teach, it is quite different than the civil war, no professional scholars that i know of right now would disagree with the statement that slavery causes war. You cannot make the same blanket about anything for the American Revolution. There are all these policies beginning in 1773 going up to the 1770s that all come together. The big point that the americans are getting at, they wanted to control their own destiny. They wanted to be sovereign over their own affairs, they want to determine what would happen in their lives. If there is one thing that did cause independence, it is the war. The war starts more than a year before the declaration thats Like Washington is already in charge. In some ways he is the first to declare independence by taking charge of the army. Slave rebellions connected to what dunmore was getting into, they are part of the war and they are unpopular. You can tell they are unpopular because they are included in the declaration. That is different than saying slavery caused the American Revolution. Does it contribute like a lot of other things . I think it does. It depends on the region and the situation. Then more on Christmas Eve in 1774 wrote in his paper, he has lost the colony at that point, i dont know if it could be called a Tipping Point where his declaration says that was true that did happen and thousands of enslaved black people were emancipated that is different than saying any colonist, the language that the 1619 project uses now is some colonist. Sometimes the way politics and scholarship work there is a bit of overcorrection. 20 years ago very few people knew who dunmore was paid more people know him now than ever. They do not think slavery had anything to do with the revolution. Is it an exit exaggerations that cost the whole thing . I think so. If we are somewhere in that spectrum that is productive. I would agree. I think the initial language was a primary cause and now it is some part. That dunmore was threatening or tried to instigate they never continued. The irony is, everything he does backfires. He was and is labor himself. Many of the African Americans who did reach the british side they suffered terribly. It is worth pointing out that the whole episode is prompted by enslaved African Americans themselves trying to become free. They are trading instability that dunmore tries to capitalize on. They know if war breaks out, of course the rebellion was underway in virginia, this was an opportunity for them. Covering that part of african American History is very important. Lets get into the timing of the declaration. There is this nebulous gray area. The colonists were in open rebellion but not quite independent and there were moderates, if we can call them that, hoping to reconcile periods still fairly late in the game, even though their demands and behavior were pointing towards a lack of reconciliation. Parliament and king would never accept a situation where they did not have authority over what was happening. I did an abridged timeline of the important stuff. Continental congress autumn 1774, colonist of informed provincial or extralegal assemblies because the Royal Assembly or royal governors are out. They are defying acts of parliament. War begins with lexington and concord. The battle of bunker hill, then the colonists eventually create new government, legal governments, which is in a sense independence. This is not ad hoc committees running things. August 23, 1775 king george iii declares america to be in a state of rebellion because the wifi was not working that day. It took until october, about three months later, for the colonist to learn. Continental congress does not know they are in open rebellion per the king for three months. Why did it take another eight months to declare independence . That gets back to what we were talking about, how british these people were. How much they love the king. There is a term in the academy, and it is seeping down into high schools but the term is anglicization. Over the course of the colonial. Something different happened. The colonist did not become more and more american overtime , there is a lot of evidence that over the course of the 18th century they are becoming more and more british and their attachment to british politics, religion, love of the king, all of those things. Style, fashion, all kinds of things. If you think about all of that, they really liked being british. At the end of the seven years war, also called the french and indian war of 1763, they are super happy they are the winning side, britain to finish defeated france and they feel like they are the freest people in the world and free people do not plan revolutions. In the words of one famous scholar, john murray, it is countercyclical. It goes against the grain of what was happening. From the point of 1763 you would expect these people to but because of different policies they changed. May be one factor in the delay to declare independence, a Public Statement that we are independent now, but even howd that is worded are they saying we had been independent and we are letting you know, or we are independent from this day forward. It was Public Opinion. Public opinion was very mixed. You had radicals john adams who were ready to do it right away and moderates alike John Dickinson of pennsylvania who kept urging caution to reconcile. Is it even possible to reconstruct Public Opinion during this. . This is a big thing that scholars are working on, it is hard great we have to do broad generalizations of the numbers. We think that around 20 are very hardcore loyalist. They are going to stick with the king no matter what. We think around 80 or so around july 1776 are strongly patriot and proamerican independent. That leaves 60 of the population on the fence. It is not clear which side they will go to. Another way of thinking about that is there are a vast majority people who are not supporting american independence at the point of declaration and thats why it had to be persuasive. I think that is why the war mattered so much. The outcome of the war, individual battles in different areas we see people switching from side to side depending on what army controlled the area. They also had to prepare for a longterm war against the most powerful army in the world. You needed uniforms, weapons and all that. Sorry to interrupt. We tend to think of the American Revolution as elitist with their nice colonial attire and in a room pending enlightenment ideas, there was a vicious war going on, is always a civil war. It was incredibly vicious. This is something that scholars have written about lately, how grisly this war could be. Even less civil than the American Civil War because it divides families and communities, towns, not just whole regions. Mob rule in some places. A mob would show up to a loyalist house, tar and feather him and expel him. The Boston Tea Party was a act of mob justice. That is right. Tarring and feathering is the most famous case of that. What finally tips the Continental Congress into declaring independence in july . The king does give a speech and october of 75, we talked about how he declared the colonist to be in rebellion and then he gives a speech to Parliament Saying the rebels are authors and rebels of a desperate conspiracy and that is about the same time common sense comes out. Then there is prohibitory acts meaning all American Congress is subject to confiscation by the royal navy, that leaves us about four months away from july. What is the final kick in the rear . All of those are important. The most underrated is the prohibitory act of 1775. One thing that act does is is is the colonist are no longer under the protection of the crown. Essentially britain is saying you are on your own. The whole thing that the subject is if you show allegiance to the monarch, the monarch would protect you. All of a sudden what britain is saying, you are not under our protection, you are on your own , we are making war on you. The culmination of all those things and then the the liberation of congress, there is one other wildcard thing happening. There is a rumor spreading in the american colonies that britain is in discussion with france and spain to partition the u. S. Holdings. In addition to get canada back to france and give florida back to spain if they help put down the american rebellion. I dont think that the british navy planted this idea that they started the rumor to discourage the americans from allying with france. In other words you cant trust france. That rumor hits a fever pitch about june 1776 when a lot of these things are coming together. We are working with perfect information right now with books and all of these things we still do not know. They were working within perfect information and they were very much conspirator is. There were things about the republicans and what they said about the federalist. The declaration was agreed on july 2nd and promulgated on july 4th, was it greeted warmly . Was a popular . I think it was treated warmly among the hardcore 30 . As i said, congress is lagging behind a lot of the country. There has been 90 declarations of independence, in some ways it is like, what are you waiting for . I think there is relief and support and apprehension. As we discussed, just as they are declaring independence, britains real army is arriving. Up to that point the british was fighting with pretty small troops and losing everywhere up and down the east coast, that is going to change. Referring to the pragmatic and the concerns of driving the deliberations, the british were hiring mercenaries. They need this is pretty we are dithering and talking and debating should we declare independence. They are coming to crush our rebellion. They could have done more to win, i think they are doing all they can they are marshaling all the resources they can print the best destroying on this is the scholar from university of virginia, he has written a book about the british side. His argument is these are not dummies, they are smart people doing all they can facing a very difficult situation. In our own words of the 21st century of counterinsurgent wars , we know how hard it is. Things that the british did not have. The name of the book is the men who lost america. It is terrific. It opens with a chapter about george iii. It does. I was going to ask, how has the way historians teach the revolution changed . How about you . We have been talking about this during our discussion, how have you changed the way you teach it . That is a good question. I am trying to read scholars and bring in new perspectives. When i started teaching more than 20 years ago, the American Revolution was almost the longest war in American History, second only to vietnam. Now, if we count in a certain way it is fourth it would be behind iraq, afghanistan and vietnam. Those affect how we look at it and how scholars look at it as very difficult. I think when you are not emerged in the. And looking at things closely, it does seem like magic words came down, independence was declared and it just happened. When you get into the granular you realize how difficult it was. Nothing for ordained had the king and parliament acted differently it would have been reconciliation. From their point of view, we are in charge, why would you succeed without a fight . And the taxes all of this, no taxation without representation. Were the taxes onerous . They werent in the sense of how much money americans spent. A lot of them defeated and appealed. There was less tax than subjects in england. When the british said you are a sweet deal, they were not wrong, it was the principal, it was the no representation. What happens over time is americans, we might say they moved the goalpost they go from no taxation and representation to no legislation without representation. They end 1776 by saying, britain, king george, we do not want you doing anything for us taxes or anything else. We talk about how it took so long, it takes 12 years to reach that point where they are ready to sever all ponds. Otherwise life is pretty good for a typical person in the 18th century, free white farmer , laborer, not compared to today. There was more material wealth for people in a free status in america than there was in europe. This gets to the finer points about government theory. I want to talk about what is going on briefly and what is going on now at George Washington university, when i say now i mean the last couple of years. The nickname for the sports team is no longer the c colonials. We talked about how younger people mostly on the left view our path and do not see this as a source of inspiration, they say they are hypocrites and they owned slaves. You have a piece right here from the gw hatchet the student newspaper. George washington, you write, was never a c colonial. You basically say that it had nothing to do with colonialism but a style of architecture. You are okay with the name change . I support the name change so gw is the revolutionaries. Right ontopic. That could be a lot of revolutionaries. When i joined the faculty in 2012, i thought it was a strange name that did not fit George Washington very well. He did not like the word colonial. He was a nationalist. If we could have the perfect name it would be the nationals but our Baseball Team has that name at the moment. Whenever he used the term colonial as a noun, which was rare, or as an adjective, he thought of it as provincial and small minded. He wanted people in the United States to think of themselves as americans not in a provincial way that connected to the former colony or state. Young people objected to the name, to them it meant colonialism. I would say the majority of the students that were against the name i told him there is a good George Washington reason. There was a student essay, this was a oped in the washington post, the University Said the university should change its name dont call it George Washington anymore. Your point is, this is one student, one opinion universe is not dropping the name George Washington. That is right. I was part of the naming task force to set up the guidelines on how we would change names on the buildings. The first decision of the committee took is that there was no changing the name. There might be a person here and there who might hold those views and we support the rights of our students to share their opinion, there is no group or movement of students who want to drop George Washington as the name. I cannot predict the future, but for now we are content with gw revs. My thing when it comes to naming statues and memorials, if someone has claim to historical significance that are broad, not just slavery, washington versus the traders who try to destroy our country in the 1860s, robert e lee, stonewall jackson, jefferson davis, they do not deserve anything named after them. There only claim to historical significance is slavery and civil war. George washington is different. We should confront his full legacy. Slavery also changed quite a bit from the 18thcentury into the 19th century. That is the subject of another podcast. The final point is, it is hard to pinpoint a single day as the start of our nation, especially since the declaration of independence does not create a government it we have the second constitution and the articles of confederation. It is as good as any, july 4th. The people in congress, especially john adams, thought july 2nd was the day. That was the day that they passed the resolution so it makes sense. It shows how powerful the declaration was. This document, it could have been real plain and served a basic purpose, it could have been a sentence or two. The fact that it had inspirational language that was carried over centuries, we are coming up on the 250th anniversary, it is remarkable that we do associate july 4th as our start date. I hope we can do this again. This has been fun. Thank you for listening, watching to this episode of history as it happens. Weekends on