Hamelton the rivality that forged a nation. Several of his books have been selections of the history book club, and the book of the month club and almost a miracle of the american victory and the war of independence was an awardwinning book as well. He had a 40year teaching career at the university of west georgia in carrollton before retiring in 2004 to focus more on writing books which is why hes been very prolific over the past few years. You can learn more about him and his books by visiting johnferling. Com can. Please join me in welcoming john ferling to the atlanta history center. [applause] thank you kate, and thank you for coming out this evening on this gorgeous atlanta spring night. Coming inside, actually, on this night to hear me talk. I want to talk tonight about my new book, whirlwind, and let me tell you first ors how i happened to first, how i happened to come up with the title, whirlwind. I used the i chose the title because it was a word that was used by both Abigail Adams and john adams to describe the events that were swirling around them during the revolution. In the fall of 1775 first year of the war, during the siege of boston camp diseases spread from the armies around boston out to the communities outside of boston including braintree where abigail was living and caused an ap demick an epidemic, lots of civilian casualties. Abigail lost her mother, and she lost a family servant that had been with her for many years. And in despair she wrote to her husband john who was down in philadelphia with the Continental Congress and said was unleashing this whirlwind really worth it . And about six months later in the last battles in congress over whether or not to declare independence john adams wrote back to abigail, and he said it requires a great deal of courage and fortitude to ride in this whirl wind. So whirlwind. So it seemed to me asboth john and abigail thought of the American Revolution and everything that was going on around them as a whirl wind that might be a good title for the book. So thats what i chose whirlwind the American Revolution and the war that won it. When john adams was an old man he wrote to Thomas Jefferson who was an old man and adams said in his letter, who shall write the history of the American Revolution . Who shall ever be able to write it . And jefferson responded to adams by saying nobody except maybe in its external facts. So its quite a challenge to write a book on the American Revolution of john adams and if john adams and Thomas Jefferson didnt think anybody could write a book on it. [laughter] but, in fact i think they put their finger on the problem that faces all historians. We werent there when the events took place. Not all of the documents have survived. We cant talk to people who were active in the American Revolution. But nevertheless, a great deal of material has survived from the revolution; the papers of most of the founders, there are newspapers, some of the participants were interviewed by newspapermen in the aftermath of the revolution. So theres a lot of documentation. And while we, like any historian writing about any event there probably are going to be some gaps. I think we make a pretty good stab at the American Revolution. Let me begin by saying that no one expected the American Revolution to occur. Officials in london didnt expect it, and the colonists didnt expect it. In 1763, what we think of as the french and indian war, came to an end. Great britain was victorious. It defeated france it defeated spain, it won control of the continent all the way out to the mississippi river. It was a glorious victory by britain. And i think many people in colonial america in 1763 probably felt like a minister in boston who wrote that he looked forward to an era of our quiet enjoyment of our liberties til time shall be no more. So no one expected revolution in 1763. And about a decade later as late as 1772 no one seemed to expect a revolution either. Samuel adams reputation had plummeted by 1772. He was having a difficult time getting elected to any position in boston or finding anyone who would listen to him. Thomas hutchinson the last royal governor of massachusetts wrote back to london in 1772 and said samuel adams is finished. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, lord north was steering a course to avoid trouble with america. He didnt really have a solution to the problems except not doing anything that would stir up trouble. And he had succeeded since he came to power early in 1770 in not stirring trouble. So he didnt expect anything to happen. In 1772 joseph galloways Political Party a very conservative party that had dominated pennsylvania politics for a long time, had was still in control. George washington was investing in all kinds of business opportunities. Not the sort of thing that one might be inclined to do if they thought a war was only a couple of years away. And Benjamin Franklin was living in london and trying his best to stay in london and perhaps getting a position in the British Government. But tax these looks are deceiving sometimes, and in 1772 where people thought there was not going to be any revolution, we know that they were on the cusp of a revolution. Things really got started in the mid 1760s when the British Government adopted a set of new colonial policies, policies that involved two things. One involved taxation by parliament of the american colonists for the first time. These were taxes raised to support a british army that for the first time had been left in america during peacetime. I dont think the colonists objected to taxes so much. They wanted to open the west. They were probably willing to be taxed by their own rulers to get the money to do what was necessary to open the west, but they didnt Want Parliament where they were not represented to raise taxes. And secondly, the british began to regulate or attempted to regulate colonial trade. Actually british laws regulating american trade have been on the books for about a hundred years but had seldom been enforced, in part because the british didnt have the bureaucracy to enforce the trade laws, but also because britain was at war so much of the time, and they needed the colonists help in those wars that they thought it was inexpedient to try to regulate those laws. As early as the early 1740s they began considering regulating the laws. This was when Robert Walpol was the Prime Minister. But walpol shied away from it. And, in fact he made the remark i will leave it for some successor who may have more courage than i have and is less a friend of commerce than i am to attempt it. And sooner or later, that successor came along, and that successor was, in fact, George Grindle who became the head of the British Ministry in 1764. Grindle was regarded as a financial genius; good with coping with details. And, in fact, as one observer put it at time, he will do can very well he will do very well facing the economic problems that england faces unless he thrusts his hand into some fire. And the fire that grindle thrust his hand into i think was taxation. And even more so in my estimation trade regulation. And the result was with the stamp act in 1765 the protest in the colonies began. And the protest included pamphlets attacking parliamentary taxation, resolves that were passed by colonial assemblies boycotts by the colonies and riots in the streets in most of the major American Cities. Some people, some intuitive people like john adams i think understood that something really important was happening. Many years later looking back on the stamp act, john adams said, the child, independence was born in 1765. But he at that point was looking back from many years down the road when he knew that independence had, in fact, occurred. But even more telling i think in 1765 in his diary adams proved to be a pretty good judge of things, and he noted in his diary, people even to the lowest ranks are more attentive to their liberties or inquisitive about them, more determined to defend them. So adams realized that something crucial was going on with the stamp act and the american protest against it. Well with independence in was independence inevitable . I dont think it was and i think that there were possibly four instances when, four ways in which independence might have been prevented by Great Britain. Let me mention two of them now and then ill come back to the others in other contexts later on. Granvilles ministry had fallen and the key figure in the ministry by late 1765 when word of the stamp act protests reached london was the duke of cumberland. He was the child of george ii, but he wasnt the eldest son. The eldest son became george iii who would be the british monarch during the revolution. The duke of cumberland instead became a military man. And back in the 1740s, he had crushed a scottish rebellion and crushed it with such ruthlessness that he was called the butcher by his contemporaries. And the word was that the duke of cumberland had wished to resort to force to suppress the american insurgency in 1765 and 1766. And he may just have been able to carry the ministry with him in that regard. But on the day that the ministry was to meet to take up the issue of how to respond to the americans, the duke of cumberland who was only in his mid 40s dropped dead of a heart attack. And with the duke of cumberland out of the way people began others began to rethink things, and the idea of using force was not chosen. But i think if the british had used force in 1765 or 1766, they might have suppressed the colonial protests. And the American Revolution might not have occurred at all or if it did, it would have occurred with some subsequent generation. The colonists, i think were disunited. They people from one colony did not know colonists from other colonies. They looked to Great Britain rather than to other colonies. And so i think the idea of the colonies being able to mount any kind of resistance to British Force was almost unthinkable in 1765 or 66. We dont know what would have happened because it didnt work out that way. But i think had force been used then the revolution and independence might have been avoided. Soon there were other voices calling for other options, and one of the voices was that of william pitt, the in effect, the Winston Churchill of Great Britain in the late 18th century, the great hero of the seven years war what we think of as the french and indian war. And william pitt and his follower edmund burke had the same idea. Their idea was to bind america to england through trade. About 40 of all British Imports came from america about 40 of all british exports went to the colonies in america and both burke and pitt felt that simply by maintaining trade britain could get all of the revenue that it needed independence would never be, would never come up again in the colonies. So that was their option rather than using force. And i think had they, had they been listened to, they were always in the Minority Party many parliament. Had they been listened to and had britain chosen that course rather than additional taxation, i think independence might never have come about. The british didnt listen, they did repeal the stamp act but they followed it with something called the declare story act in which parliament declared that it did have the right not only to tax the colonies, but to make laws in all cases whatsoever for america. And this put the two on a collision course because the british would never change their policies from this point forward down to and beyond 1776. But even though the stamp act had been repealed, even though this crisis passed, colonists learned some important lessons from what had happened. Those who oppose the stamp act flourished. Samuel adams remember, whose career a few years later some people thought was over, really got his start through the stamp act. And he got elected to the Massachusetts Assembly and to an important position in the Massachusetts Assembly. And james otis, who like samuel adams had resisted and protested against the stamp act rose in the Massachusetts Assembly to become the speaker of the assembly. Even more dramatically perhaps was Patrick Henry in virginia. Henry had only been elected to the Virginia House of burgesses, the Virginia Assembly, a couple of weeks before in april of 1765 and almost immediately after taking his seat, henry proposed a series of resolutions denouncing the stamp act. And henry was catapulted from a newcomer to a leader in the house of burgesses. He thrived and other politicians noticed that, that he was thriving, because of his op is decision to the opposition to the stamp act. One who did note that henry had flourished was Richard Henry lee. Richard henry lee had said in the house had sat in the house of burgesses for about eight years always trying to get ahead and never rising in the house of burgesses. He was so desperate so ambitious, is so desperate to rise that when word of the stamp act reached virginia, Richard Henry lee applied to become the stamp collector in virginia. He didnt get that position, fortunately for him. The man who got the position was round of virginia was run out of virginia. But Richard Henry lee watched what had happened to Patrick Henry, he saw that henry had risen, and all of a sudden Richard Henry lee became a foe of the stamp act. And, in fact he vilified the man who became the stamp collector, the position he wanted saying that that individual had sought to fasten the chains of slavery on my country. In pennsylvania Jost Galloway Joseph galeway was swept from galloway was swept from power. Galloway had been the most important political figure along with Benjamin Franklin in pennsylvania for about 15 years. In fact, galloway and franklin cobbled together a Political Party that they called the Assembly Party and it dominated the legislature in pennsylvania for 15 years with galloway being the speaker of house during all of that time. But galloway supported the stamp act, and for the first time, his Assembly Party lost control of the Pennsylvania Legislature and galloway was chased out as the speaker of the house. In massachusetts 19 assemblymen who supported the stamp act were voted out of office. So politicians were pretty much the same in 1765 as they are today. They noticed what was going on, and many concluded that perhaps the prudent thing perhaps the thing that would advance ones career was to oppose british policy, not to support parliamentary policy. Colonists learned Something Else in the course of the stamp act. Colonists learned that their fellow americans from other colonies in many cases felt the same way that they did. Those in massachusetts who opposed the stamp act discovered that there were virginians who opposed the stamp act and south carolinians and pennsylvanians who opposed the stamp act and thought pretty much as they did. So its the first step, only a childs step. Remember john adams comment that child independence was born but they did take a childs step toward unity. They also learned that there were people in london like pitt and like burke that we saw earlier that they began to call americas friends people who opposed parliamentary policy. And from this point on, they tried to court those individuals in england. In fact, there is even a couple of lines in the declaration of independence later on that appeals still even at that point to those american friends. And the colonists learned Something Else in the stamp act crisis. They learned that Great Britain had backed down. They may have passed the declaratory act, but Great Britain had repealed the stamp act. So protests could gain something. But the british followed the repeal of the stamp act with other taxes. And i think this is the second great mistake that the british made after launching their new colonial policy in the first place. The policies now will drag on and on from 1765 when the stamp act is passed all the way down to the beginning of the war in 775 1775, a decade later. Its a very long time. And during that long period of time when the townsend acts are passed and the tea act is passed and britain sends an army to boston in 1768 to enforce its policies and it for the first time in history dissolves the new York Assembly and wouldnt let it meet because it refused to comply with the parliamentary act and the boston massacre almost inevitably followed in 1770 with that british army in boston. So its a series of crises, a series of things happening. Drip drip, drip year after year. And during each of these crises i think, the colonist as john adams said back in 1765 are thinking about their liberties. Theyre reflecting on their position within the british empire. And some, i think are beginning to think that maybe they would be better off outside of the british empire. A great many merchants i think in america certainly not all many of the merchants were quite conservative because they realized that they were protected by the british navy, they got insurance for their shipments from companies in london. But a great many other merchants wanted freer trade. They didnt want to be restricted by British Trade laws. That was particularly true, i think, of new england merchants who wanted to be able to sell their goods anywhere that they could find a market for those goods and not have their trade restricted by parliamentary policy. And those who were tied to those merchants sailors and long shoremen, for example realized that they flourished if the merchants flourished. And so they, they followed. Or at least were on the same page as the merchants many merchants in looking at british policies. Some people like George Washington, for example, became restive by the 1770s. Washington owned a great deal of land out west, about 60,000 acres, in fact. And he didnt own the land just for the sake of owning it, he obviously owned the land because he wanted settlers to move out west, and he wanted to sell his land to the settlers. But the british in what was called the proclamation of 1763 had prohibited Movement Across the mountains out to all those fertile prairies in transappalachia. At First Washington wasnt bothered by that. He thought it was a temporary policy by the british. But year after year went by, and by the late 1760s washington realized that maybe britain was never going to at least not in his lifetime lift the proclamation of 1763. And in 1768 washington wrote a letter. One can almost feel and hear the venom coming from washingtons pen when he spoke of our lordly masters in london. I think washington, like samuel adams, probably already favored american independence as early as the late 1760s, though certainly he could not openly say so at that point. And a great many other virginia planters like Thomas Jefferson jefferson oops ive got to to [laughter] do you know how to, how to move her along . Ah there we go. Okay. A great many other virginia planters like Thomas Jefferson were restive because they wanted to ship their markets outside of Great Britain. They under british law, they could only send their tobacco to england, but people in england could take virginias or chesapeake tobacco and they could send it abroad to a better market and make more money off of it. And jefferson spoke of the galling yolk of dependence, as he put it. So i think many people before 1776 though they werent saying so openly were beginning to think in terms of america separating and going its own way. Certainly what we can say is that by the late 1760s perceptive people on both sides realized that colonial america and the mother country across the sea were on a collision course. Benjamin franklin perhaps put it best. Franklin said the more i have thought and read on the subject the more i find myself confirmed in opinion that no middle doctrine exists. I mean one extreme or the other must prevail. Either the americans have their way, or Great Britain has their way. And at almost the same moment, the commander of the british army in america, general thomas gage who probably since he wasnt confined to one province but could look over all of the colonies might have had the best perspective on colonial thinking, pretty much concluded the same thing that the colonists were moving toward independence on this collision course. And gage, in fact, wrote home to the ministry in london, and he said in 1768 the colonists mean to go on step by step til they throw off all subjections in parliament. And if they succeeded in overthrowing parliament, the day will come when they also deny the prerogatives of the crown the power of the king, in other words. And so i think perceptive people on both sides saw what was coming. And through a series of events the tea act is passed, is levied, rather, in 1773 shipments of dutied tea are sent over to america to four cities, to charleston, to new york, to philadelphia, to boston. It was sold nowhere and in boston the tea was thrown into Boston Harbor in mid december of 1773 in the Boston Tea Party. And the Boston Tea Party led Great Britain to respond with what were called the coercive acts. Great britain singled out boston and massachusetts for punishment. It fined boston, made it pay for the tea that was that had been destroyed, and changed the government of massachusetts. In fact, revoking a charter that had been in place for threequarters of a century and replacing it with a new charter. And it was that step i think that angered and alarmed colonists from other kohl colonies who werent affected by directly affected by the coercive acts n. Pennsylvania, for example, where a great many people had come from small religious sects, had come over to pennsylvania because of its religious freedom the feeling was that if the ministry in london could simply arbitrarily take away massachusetts charter, it could do same thing to pennsylvania. And when it took away pennsylvanias charter, religious freedom might go down the tubes there as well. And so the colonies responded to the coercive acts by calling an Intercolonial Congress that every colony except georgia sent delegates to and it met in philadelphia in Carpenters Hall in september of 1774. And this is the point of no return. Congress either had to decide to back down, or it had to decide that it was going to defy the coercive acts and put up a united front be against Great Britain front against Great Britain. And it did so knowing that if it defied Great Britain almost certainly that meant war. And at the first Continental Congress, i think the colonists decided that they were sufficiently unified. They had a man there who was a soldier, had been a sold doppler virginia for five years George Washington, who might lead their army, and they thought that they were capable of resisting Great Britain. Not declaring independence at this point. This is still almost two years before independence. But they could force Great Britain to back down, to repeal the coercive acts and all of the other objectionable acts that went back to the stamp act in 17635. 1765. And when the ministers in london realized, when they learned in december of 1774 that the Continental Congress had defied their rule and their policies then the ministers began debating using force. Going back to what the duke of cumberland had thought about doing way back in 1765. And in the discussions in the ministry the mood was that it was just inconceivable that the colonists could stand up against the british military. One said, in fact, a good bleeding will bring those biblefaced yankees to their senses. Another general said that he could march from maine to georgia with 5,000 troops and suppress any american insurrection. Another said that the americans were a poor species of fighting men. Another said that they were a rude rabble without a plan. Another said that they were raw, undies palined cowardly men who would take flight at the very sound of a cannon. Another said, we will have them, he said. And even a bit later, a year or so later an aide to general to another british general, general william howe, said of the commander of the Continental Army that was soon to be created, George Washington, that he was a little paltry colonel of militia at the head of a band of rebels. And so the feeling was that this would really be a pretty easy task for Great Britain, to suppress the american rebellion. Couple of people in the ministry did raise some serious questions, however. One some said what about france . What if france enters the war on the side of the americans . We might be in big trouble then. But that was brushed aside. The feeling was that the american rebellion would be crushed while the french were still trying to make up their mind whether to enter or not. And others raised a question about fighting in the back country. How in the world could the british army wage war in the american back country . How could it supply an army from the coast into the back country . And that was brushed aside too with the notion that simply by taking the major American Cities the american spirit of resistance would collapse, and the war would come to an end. And so or the rebellion, rather, would come to an end. And so in january 1775, the ministry opted for war. The american secretary lord dartmouth, was instructed to send orders to general gage to use force. And the result was on april 19, 1775 at lexington and concord and all that day along what thereafter became known as battle road, the road linking concord and boss boston, fighting took place, and nearly 300 british soldiers were killed or wounded. Later on a journalist asked a colonial militiaman, a massachusetts militiaman from can verse massachusetts why he had risked his life fighting that day against the british. And i think we remember some of the famous comments made by people during the revolution, i regret that i only have one life to give, and ive only begun to fight and all of the other things that we recall. But to me, what captain levi preston said really encapsulated the feelings of a great Many Americans in going to war against Great Britain. He was asked, as i said why he had fought that day and the journalist said was it because of the stamp act . No he said. The tea act . No again he said. Was it from reading John Locke Tran chard and gordon . I never heard of these men he responded. Then why did you fight . And here was his answer what we meant in going for those redcoats was this we always had governed ourselves and we always meant to. They didnt mean we should. And that, i think summed up the feelings of a great Many Americans. They wanted to govern themselves, and that was the direction they had been moving toward since the stamp act crisis. So war was underway, and war was the great radicallizer. If people Like Washington and jefferson and sam and john adams were gradually radicalized after 1765 a great many other people were really radicalized once the war began. Simply the fact that the kings soldiers were trying to kill colonists and in many cases succeeding in killing colonists was regarded as betrayal. Here were colonists who had been loyal to Great Britain for 150 years, who had furnished thousands of men in earlier wars on behalf of Great Britain who had helped Great Britain score this great victory over france and spain in 1763 and gobble up half of a continent and now the ink was hardly dry on the treaty of paris that gave britain this great victory and britains soldiers were killing americans. And the governor of virginia was liberating slaves who would flee behind british lines and fight for the british. Dunmores proclamation said a south carolinian congressman, did more to work an external separation than any other expedient than could be thought of. And can so they began moving as they were radicalized moving steadily toward independence. There were i think a couple of things that were especially important in moving the colonists toward independence. Thomas paines commence came out common sense came out in january 1776, and paines common sense gave a meaning to what was going on. This wasnt a conflict over taxes merely or regulation of commerce alone. Something more majestic was involved in this. Americans had within their grasp the opportunity to start world anew the world anew, to remake the world, thomas paine said. The American Revolution with american independence was nothing less than or would be nothing less than the birthday of a new world. No one had really thought of it in those terms before. And so paines common sense changed the thinking of a great many people. But if i had to put my finger on any one thing that would explain the timing of independence in july of 1776, it was two military debacles suffered by the americans. The americans had sent an army into canada the try to take quebec in the fall of 1775. Those armies were defeated on the last day of 1775. The congress rushed in reenforcements to that army, and the reenors forcements reinforcements stays until 1776 when british reinforcements arrived. And the moment the british reinforcements arrived at quebec the American Army fell apart. One general said it turned into a mob. Men simply ran pellmell for safety leaving behind wounded and sick comrades. And when Congress Learned of what had happened in quebec and in canada, congress realized that the only way it could win this war was with foreign assistance. To write a declaration of independence. Jefferson did it very quickly, probably spending no more than about five days writing a majestic declaration of independence. No country was ever found on the majestic principles of this country founded on all men are created equal and all men are endowed by their creator with National Rights among with our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the committee, the fivemember committee that jefferson was part of presented at the declaration of independence to congress. Congress deviated for a day and a half for a day and a half the independence and on july 2 they voted independent, and john adams in his diary, or actually in the letter to abigail said july 2 will be celebrated from this point forward for all time as independence day. He was wrong about that. Carol and i still celebrate on july 2 but i think we are the only ones in the country that do. Congress took up jeffersons declaration of independence that afternoon july 2 and added all the way down to july 4 and on july 4 it adopted a declaration of independence, and that has become the day that we remember. The war are still have to be one. Independence had been declared. But the war had to be one. And the british thought there would be no contest. The americans couldnt put up much of a fight. So very briefly how did the columnists end up winning this war . The americans were fortunate that the british had a poor set of generals. The generals certainly had their problems facing them from this point on problems of getting supplies over here too much territory to have to conquer generals like how one of the most cluster that of generals and they won the war and they could not do contest in the country. About had it turned out to be an accurate prediction. In fact the only major victory at the british scored in the country was in camden and for carolina in august of 1780 the concord and sarasota Kings Mountain is the courthouse and yorktown. The british either failed to win over they suffered egregious defeat. And france came into the war just as some warmth might happen coming in first in 1776 then they allied with the americans in 1778, then they sent an army over in 1780 and along volunteers like lafayette were coming over and the french assistance was crucial to the american victory. But the americans had something to do with it, too. They had a theater named George Washington who at times wage to Brilliant Campaigns at a trenton and princeton and even germantown where he didnt win but john adams said that germantown so impressed the french that it was washingtons daring that led the french to finally decide to ally with with the americans. Washington i think was a good administrator. He was a symbol around which people could rally. There was no hint of scandal on washingtons part during this long war. He made a great many mistakes as a field commander and as a strategist i think that overall the conclusion that i reached was that the country was fortunate to have had washington and lucky to have survived some of the mistakes that he made and was also fortunate to have Nathaniel Greene who waged an absolutely Brilliant Campaign in the south in 1781 so much so that i argue in the book that it was in the south that the war was actually won one by the colonists in 1781. The militia was crucial for the americans house while. Thousands and thousands of militiamen served into the war couldnt have been won without at the same can be said of the continental centers. 100,000 men served in the Continental Army. 5,000 of those 100000 were africanamericans. Many who had been in this league and were liberated by their masters and who thought hooping and gaining their freedom if they survived the war. As all of this to say that britain could not have won the war . No, i dont think so. I think the british could have won the war. The general had told the British Government before the hostilities began if you go to war, have a very large army here when the first blow was struck. The first blow is crucial if we can inflict a crushing blow on the americans at the very outset of the war, it will break your back. But the british had too few men in america barely more than 5,000 when the war began in april of 1775. Even so, the british almost won the war at the beginning of 1781 the americans were in desperate straits. The economy had collapsed. There were mutinies in the the new jersey line and in the pennsylvania line in january of 1781. John and abigails good friend who was a congressman from massachusetts wrote a letter on january 1, 1781, which some things. We are bankrupt within mutinous army, and john adams who was in europe at the time was riding home saying what i think its is certainly true, you must score a decisive victory in 1781 or france will quit the war. It has gained nothing by its participation in the war and it will quit the war unless there is a decisive victory. And that decisive victory came in 1781 yorktown and a military move that was envisioned by the french commander, general rochambeau and not by washington. In closing, let me remind you that this is a violent war more than i think many of us realize. The percentage of men in the Continental Army of regulars who died during this war was roughly equal to the toll of the total of the regulars that died in the civil war and ten times greater than regulars in the American Military in world war ii. By a very conservative estimate, one in 16 and americans died in the war compared to one one in ten in the civil war and one in 75 world war ii. Those are the figures only for the Continental Army and not for the militia to know exactly how many militiamen died. When independence was declared i think there were three moves in congress. Some congressmen did not want independence at all if those congressman dropped out. They Left Congress in july of 76. Another group wanted independence but these were the most conservative. Men like john adams who certainly wanted independence, but if you did was look for the republican form of government but not a social revolution. In the american and the American Society adams hoped would remain essentially as if had been through the colonial period. Then there was the third mood of thomas paine and it was certainly shared by Thomas Jefferson. And that was that independence would usher in the birthday of the new world. It would not only eliminate monarchical rule and aristocratic rule, it would institute a republican government and it would be a step toward democracy and towards great social change in america. Both sides in a sense one. A few years after the war comes to the end of a very conservative Constitutional Convention in philadelphia and adopted a constitution which makes change. Difficult to bring about. But also the revolution unleashed forces that not everyone saw immediately. I think it is reflected by something that happened. Let me tell you this story, and then i will quit. Around 1780, a british officer who had been captured at saratoga and was interned in virginia managed to go visit one of the most distinguished virginia families at his plantation on the james river and that captured the british officer left and account of what happened, and account of something that horrified him. While he was there visiting the kernel and i am reading now from the captured british officers account three country peasants came upon business without waiting to be invited, they took seats, removed of the country booths all over my comments but into the fireplace and, taking great liberties, conversed with the planter owner as if they were his equal. After they departed, colonel randolph who was confronted by such behavior explained that it was unavoidable for the spirit of independence he was converted in to the quality. And everyone is deemed himself upon the footing with his neighbor. To that she added no doubt each of these men conceives himself in every respect my equal. This was the birthday of a new world of the Thomas Jefferson and thomas paine envisioned and it succeeded as part of a legacy of the American Revolution shaping the world that we live in today. Thank you very much. [applause] if anyone has a question, i have a microphone so that we can record your question. Spinnaker earlier you mentioned that john adams was promoting the republican form of government and then Thomas Jefferson to the democratic form of government. I was wondering how they came to agree on revolution, not have a unified idea of the government that would replace i think both jefferson and adams probably were not that far apart in the 1770s. Both were antimonarchical and both were opposed to aristocracies. Jefferson i think became more radicalized when he went to europe. He spent five years in france toured around france and europe in the 1780s and what he saw i think convinced him of the dangers of monarchy. And im not sure that jefferson ever was himself a fullblown democrat at least not until the 19th century. But i think that he came to represent forces in america that did want a democratic revolution and which ultimately saw in his election in 1800 that they had ushered in a democratic revolution with jeffersons election and in fact himself he called it the revolution of 1800. I think there is a microphone over here. In the earlier period when the british had the troops over here why werent they able to convey to the colonists the need to support through the taxes . A as i mentioned, they were just as interested in getting the list of become even more than the british and getting the list open. And what the british were actually planning to do was essentially what the United States would do in the 19th century when the british kept the army in america for all time in peacetime. That is west of the mountains and was there to pacify the west which is a nice way of saying that they were there to kill the indians or force them into opening the west to supplement. So i think they supported that, they just didnt support the idea of having to pay taxes that were levied by the parliament to support the army. After all i used to always tell my classes when i taught, if you want to see who controlled, who dominates any society, look at the taxation policies because people dont ask themselves if they can get away with it. They tax other people. And the british colonists saw that if the british were were lobbying the taxes committee obviously had no control over who was going to be taxed or to what degree. They wanted to be able to tax themselves. I think if the british had stepped aside and not attempted further taxation the colonists would have probably in the end raised their own force to send out west with their own taxes and would have done essentially with the british were hoping to do. Just prior to the declaration, something called the galloway plan was proposed to congress and that is a very close vote. Can you comment on that . I wrote my doctoral dissertation on joseph galloway. On that rather crucial turning point. He was a representative in the first Continental Congress from pennsylvania. And he was desperately seeking to avoid war. He thought it would be disaster this from many standpoints. But even if they did win a war he thought that it would lead to great social change. In fact he was pretty pricey and in his thinking accept for the matter of not being able to win the war. But what he outlined occurring in america as a result of the war for social changes and democratization, that was right on target. So in the First Congress before the war, the lead of the most conservative faction and he introduced a compromise plan. He thought that was the only way you could resolve the issue is by some sort of compromise the americans would give up something, the british would give up something and what galloway proposed was that a third house of parliament would be created. He proposed an American Branch of congress, of the Parliament Rather come and that the American Branch would consist of Something Like the Continental Congress and an executive official he called president general the president general who would be appointed by the king and the fact that legislation could be passed for the colonies without the consent of the American Branch. But his plan was tabled by one vote. They were voting by colonies and as for the vote was actually buy a 5for vote. We can to break the code. I dont know how many people voted one way or another but each colony had only one vote and its conceivable that a majority of the congress when actually voted for galloways plan. But the crucial thing was how did the colonies vote in four of them voted in favor of the fight against it. Rhode island is this point. They had two delegates. One voted for and one voted against so it didnt have a vote in the end. And so galloways plan was tabled and never came back up again and in fact john adams later on said he thought that the proposal was the single most dangerous thing that had been proposed before independence in the colonies. It alarmed him to that degree. Jefferson sort of headache transformation to become a true revolutionary. How did he reconcile does he reconcile that with the laboring . He never really did reconcile that. Jefferson early on i think was active against slavery in the period when he presented the house in the early 1770s he was a supporter of antislavery moves. The house house actually voted at one point before the war. They did it probably selfserving way because they have too many in virginia and they thought that they would be able to sell the surplus to the South Carolina and georgia. That did pass the Virginia Assembly but it was vetoed by the council in london and i think that was one of jeffersons fingers that led to jefferson becoming a revolutionary but he saw again with clarity that ultimately the colonists had no say. But the most crucial decisions that were being made were being made 3000 miles away in london. Jefferson and the draft of the declaration of independence included a long paragraph denouncing the king for maintaining slavery and the slave trade in america, and he even said in a statement to that they had the same natural rights as all other people have the rights to life liberty and pursuit the pursuit of happiness. So, in a sense i think that hes making a statement against slavery in the original draft of the declaration but when congress edited the declaration it took out about a third of jeffersons draft including the paragraph. If the declaration of independence includes anything that appears to be an antislavery state and then later on i think jefferson changes somewhat probably because of the great slave insurrection. He was horrified by the massacres that followed the slave insurrection. He had two daughters living on isolated plantations in virginia. He lived on one himself a bunch of time and he feared once you let the genie out of the bottle, then the same thing might happen in virginia thats happened in santo domingo. And he refused from that point on unfortunately but nevertheless to take any kind of stand. Please get your copy we are selling about 25 off and then he will be signing them in the back. Thank you so much for being here. [applause] is letterpress offers joseph ellis and stacy schiff took a look at the Political Climate in america following the American Revolution. They examine why americas newly independent states decided to accept the centralized government. We are so pleased to welcome joseph ellis acclaimed author and historian. He recently retired his position as the Ford Foundation professor of history where he taught courses in American History since 1972. Joseph ellis has also published over ten books including his book on Thomas Jefferson which won the National Book award as well as the book founding brothers which one a pulitzer prize. Most recently, he wrote the second American Revolution which you hear about tonight. Our moderator for the evening is