Postdoctoral fellowship are from Southern Methodist university. Previously, dr. Levinsky worked as a historian at the white house, historical associate asian. Her writing has appeared in the wall street journal, ms. Magazine in the daily beast, bulwark time magazine, usa today, cnn, and the washington post, just to name a few. Dr. Travis, she is the author of the Award Winning book the cabinet, George Washington and the creation of an American Institution and is currently working on her second book, tentatively titled an honest man the inimitable presidency of john adams. Speaking of mr. Adams, help me welcome lindsey to share her presentation. Peace and inviolable faith with all nations. John adams independence and the quest for neutrality. Hello, everyone. It is a joy to be here with you today to talk about john adams independence neutrality and everything in between. One of the mistakes i think we make as a historian, as history lovers, as readers, is we tend to separate our history into three buckets. Colonial, revolutionary. And then the early republic, when in reality, the names that were talking about today often lived throughout all of those three periods. They experienced the events and those experience. Is that knowledge that firsthand leadership experience and intuition they received shaped what they did next. So we really cant treat them as separate. I also want to challenge us to think beyond those tempers. All limitations of north thinking about big like independence, especially as were coming up on the 250th anniversary of that big date. And heres why we can declare something so but that doesnt necessarily make it a reality. I would like to say that i am as tall as scot never going to happen. Never going to happen. There are no shoes tall enough so just by declaring something doesnt actually make it a reality. And that is true for independence. So my discussion today with you is what does it mean to declare someone or a nation independent . And then how do you actually make it happen . When does it actually happen . What is the turning point at which you can say we are actually independent . And for john adams, who was so integral to this process for so many years, for him, it was about when you can declare own Foreign Policy, have it respected by foreign nations, and particularly when it comes to neutrality. So these themes that weve been talking about all day, neutrality, independent nations, whether its in russia and britain or whether its in the United States with france, they were the main central focus of john life. So our story really has to begin with the outbreak of hostilities in lexington and concord. Of course, john adams lived not far from these battles. And then, of course the battles that followed, he was not present for them. He was already in philadelphia at the Continental Congress. And when he arrived in 1774, he was pretty gung ho to get moving with the independence process. Now he was not the first person to suggest independence, but he was very happy to to follow up with it while he was in philadelphia, his wife and his son, john quincy, were updating him from what was happening at home in massachusetts, including firsthand descriptions from their eyewitness testimony overlooking the battle of bunker hill from a nearby little spot on a nearby hill as so as john adams was learning about these things technically the colonies were just that they were colonies, and yet they were fighting a war. So he suggested maybe something should actually be done about that the following year when the declaration was actually written and published. And while jefferson gets all the credit, we should remind ourselves that it was a committee, and any writer knows that the key to good writing is good editing. I do think that credit to belongs to the committee as well. When the committee approved, then the entire Continental Congress decided pass the declaration of independence. The war had been taking place at this point for a year. George washington. And the subject of my first book had already joined the continental army. He was in new york city. He was having the very, very worst summer of his entire war experience. And so this was very much a lived reality. The declaration should have surprise to no one. So it wasnt really a declaration for colonists or americans was a declaration for the world. The declaration should really be seen as an International Announcement of what the colonies intend to do and why they intended to do it. They werent trying to overstate, wrote all monarchies. This was key because this was a world of monarchies. They were trying to make a very specific case that they had good reason and to overthrow this one particular or tyrant all other tyrants should feel very safe for the time being. And they had they wanted those other tyrants to also help them. So they quite literally listed all the reasons why they were justified. And if we read the declaration in this light, when we read it as basically a list of reasons why foreign nations should support this cause, we can see the importance of how foreign nations treated the colonies or the states to their independence. It wasnt enough that they thought themselves independent. It wasnt enough for britain to think they were trying to fight for that independ ence. Other nations had to think so as well. So the next moment i want to take us to our is john adams attempts to try and make this a reality after many, many, many, many years of fighting the war, the Continental Congress sent a multi person delegation in to france to try and come up with a treaty that would actually end the fighting. Right now at this point, Benjamin Franklin had been in france for a very long time. He was very beloved. He was very famous. He was also very sick with gout. He couldnt really get out of bed for most the negotiations. So it was primary left, left up to john jay and john adams to really get the ball rolling, to start this process. John jay and john adams often harsh words for a lot of people. They very rarely had harsh words for each other. And in fact, when this process all wrapped up, adams gave jay most of the credit, which is not something that john adams did very often. So they really respected another. They really got along with one another. They both were very sort of legal minded, very rational, and they agreed on two particular goals for their negotiations. Now, both of these goals kind one against the treaty of 1778, that the United States had had signed with france and kind of went against their instruction ins that they had received from the confederate congress. Nonetheless, they knew better and there were going to be these two rules. First, they were not going to work with france in the negotiation with Great Britain. They grasped very quickly and then had to convince Benjamin Franklin that france didnt really care about an independent United States. France didnt really care what happened in the colonies. France cared about plundering as much as they possibly could from their british enemies and trying to keep the United States subservient because it their purposes so they were going to go it alone. They were going to not really tell france what they were doing, and then they would ask for forgiveness later. Second, rule recognition of independence by Great Britain had to be step one. Any other negotiations had to come after that it was nonnegotiable. So when the time came, i love this picture because the british negotiators kind of refused to sit for it because it was such a positive treaty for the americans. They really got everything wanted a little bit. So, nope, wrong, wrong direction. What it is supposed to look like is there there are several other guys here. I think i have to. I have it here now. I dont. Okay. There is a draft of what its supposed to look like, but they ended up not wanting to sit for because indeed the treaty did capture those two goals. Article two of the treaty specified that the British Empire would recognize the independence of the United States. This treaty was negotiated. Any french participation. They then had to negotiate their own treaty. They also received rights to fisheries outside of newfoundland and which is up in canada. They received huge swaths of territory which really kind of screwed over the native American Allies of the british. It was a very, very favorable settlement and the british didnt want to sit for the painting. But so i love that this treaty is so essential because it demonstrates john adams thinking about what it means to be independent. Again, its not what they thought. Its what other people recognized. So thats all well and fine. They have declared independence. Great britain has recognized independence at this point. France has to, as part of the treaty that they signed in 1778, all is well except what does it mean to actually be an independent nation . They they they want that independence. Yes. Now, what the Confederation Period often i think overlooked or treated sort of a colossal failure, which is understandable because it kind of was. But its very important for a couple reasons. This period was when they had to start figuring out how does one actually manage a nation. It was easy not, easy. It was easier during the war when they had a common enemy and make it all fight against the british. Once that common was gone, they had to figure, how do you have a Foreign Policy how do you have a defense policy . How do you have an Economic Policy when . You have 13 squabbling states who disagree with each other on almost everything and want very different and often conflicting goals. This was particularly problematic. Those european powers that we talked about, france and Great Britain and spain were more than to try and sort of drive wedges between those states and encourage them to split into different factions. And they were welcome to sort of embrace any stragglers that might be interested in breaking off from the United States and returning to those empires. So there were lots of reasons to believe that the european nations were really all that respectful of american independence. Thankfully the United States got a Second Chance. The u. S. Constitution, which we actually just heard a great deal, the ratification process, the Constitutional Convention was a Second Chance. Most nations dont get Second Chances and so the participants, including, of course, George Washington, who is pictured here at his inauguration, recognized the of that moment, the rare opportunity of that Second Chance and were eager to try and make the most of it. Now, every single choice that washington had make as president , he knew might set precedent for those that and he felt that burdens so heavily that he wrote to henry knox on the way to his inauguration that he felt he was a prisoner going to a place of execution. Not exactly the happy sentiments we usually associate with the president ial inauguration. So washington went through a number steps to try and figure out how to build out the institution of the presidency build out the new United States. Give it the legitimacy and sort of the customs and the trappings of office that europeans were accustomed to. So its important to remember at this time, people jefferson and john adams, who had been ministers across the had been to places like versailles and the court of saint james said he wouldnt bend adversaires show of hands. Not exactly too right. Similarly, those Foreign Ministers were expecting maybe not that level of finery, but they were expecting something. And so and adams and many of the other leading individuals at the time were trying to figure out what is the right balance between maintaining their republican virtue. And of course, this is r republican virtue and still getting that respect that is necessary from those foreign nations and there several different moments that i think washington really had to grapple with. So the first was just setting up what it means to be president to day. And he sent a spectacular letter to john adams. Thats the one that we still have in the archives. But he also sent one to John Jay Alexander hamilton. And i think he sent one to henry knox, basically asking a list of questions about what i supposed to do and those questions go Something Like, can i attend private events . Can i have people over to my house . Should i be opening the house to citizens every so often . How much access should i be providing to the presidency . Should i return calls mean these were sort of every single detail might seem a little bit silly until. You have to make all these decisions. The first time. So that was the first hurdle that washington had to overcome as he was making these decisions. He was also welcoming Foreign Ministers for the first time, and that was a big moment because the first time the president received, the credentials of a foreign minister did two things. It recognized their diplomatic relationship. And it also was a sign that the foreign nation thought United States was important enough to send a minister. It was a it was a sign of respect. Unfortunately, the president s house, philadelphia, where washington spent most of his presidency and john adams spent most of his no longer stand the location is at 16 market streets and you can still see a little bit of the outline of the floor but this is a 3d recreation of what the house would have looked like. It was one of the largest private in philadelphia at the time. It actually belonged to robert morris. He basically rented it to the federal government on behalf of the president and then moved to another house he owned door. So it wasnt exactly slumming it. The house was was lovely, was grand washington made some adjustments because unlike mason he could not help himself and was constantly with architecture and finery and draperies and carpets and he was a control freak. So every single detail had to be just so so this was the house where he welcomed Foreign Ministers usually he did so in the first floor in the state dining room. It had a bow window, which is basically a half circle window, which was, by the way, the inspiration for the oval office in the white house. And he would stand in front of this window, which was a very regal looking backdrop. And the ministers this is a picture of what that may have looked like at a particular time. One of the ministers that washington welcomed proved to be particularly difficult in february of 1793, france declared war on Great Britain and the conflict spiraled into an international war. It included their colonies, their allies, their and the United States with that was tasked with trying to stay of it. The u. S. At this point had almost no army and no so even if it wanted to fight, it had nothing to fight with. It also had no business being in a war. It was just beginning to recover from the revolution financially, physically, emotionally. So neutrality was essential. But what neutral means is actually way more complex it in practice than it is in theory washington. A Cabinet Meeting which he did, he had to make his Big Decisions and he asked them a list of questions about how to proceed over the next eight months. The cabinet met 51 times up to five times per week, sometimes several hours per day in private study, which was a pretty small room in philadelphia, usually in the middle of the summer without air conditioning. And at this point, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton absolutely despised each other. So you can imagine how fun those meetings would have been. Probably Like Committee meetings, actually, that mason complained. About one of the things that the cabinet recommended was that washington make a proclamation saying that the United States is staying out of the war. And it was a warning to both american citizens not to meddle and it was a warning to foreign actors. However, this proclamation is not law. So what do you do if a citizen decides to go fight anyway . Are they breaking the law . If what court going to hear that case . Is it a jury or is it a judge whos supposed impose a penalty . Where would that penalty if its jail, where would that be . What what jurisdiction . It and these were just the domestic questions, the international questions were even more complex, largely. Thanks to the gentleman on the right whose name was citizen charles ginni. He was the new french minister. He had sailed over from france. Ship had been blown off course and landed in charleston, rather than immediately making his way to philadelphia yet to be presented. Pictured here, he decided itd be great. Enjoy some balls and parades. Celebrations in charleston and to set up some wildly fancy privateer course. Im sure some of you know this, not all audiences do. So a private here is a private ship sailing under a letter of marque or basically a license from a foreign nation to attack that nations enemies. So for example, france hire a private american citizen to take his ship out to attack british ships if they were successful, they would drag that british ship back into harbor, sell off anything valuable turn that british into a new french privateer and repeat the whole process. This was not particularly neutral behavior. Did ginni had different ideas about what american neutrality should be . So he disregarded the proclamation but he did eventually make his way to philadelphia, although he took his sweet and enjoyed a lot of parties along the way. Got to philadelphia, presented himself, and then set up a factory. A french privateer in the port of philadelphia. And the problem was his privateers were really, really good. So would go out, capture british ships and drag them back into the port of philadelphia at the port of philadelphia was six blocks from washingtons house. It was also just a few blocks. The british ministers house. So you can imagine how well that behavior went over there when he was literally dragging british ships into the port and then renaming them things like citizen ginni. Its a little bit of an insult to both the british minister and to proclamation in august to washington convened a few Cabinet Meetings and he basically said, do we do . He will not listen to reason, he will not listen to us. He will not stop. And the cabinet ultimately decided to request the recall of ginni from france. This was a huge step. The United States had never done so before. They werent sure how offended france was going to be and were very tentative and nervous this step. But they felt like it was really essential because he just was so difficult to manage ultimately, france did issue recall orders. Interestingly, washington did not make him go home because this was the height of the french revolution and if he had gone home, he would have been executed. So washington allowed him to stay in the United States as a private citizen. He went to upstate new york and married the daughter of governor clinton and actually lived the rest of life very quietly and got into actually no trouble whatsoever. So it was only when he was french minister that he was troublesome. But the fact that the french acknowledged that he had been a problem, the fact that france had said, you have a right to establish your own Foreign Policy and to demand that Foreign Ministers on your soil, respect that policy was precedent. So things with france are okay for the moment, for moment. A little bit of foreshadowing. So things naturally with england are going to get tense. One of the real challenges of do they include that now . One of the real challenges of the and british and american relationship at this point is the british navy can never get enough soldiers. It can never sailors sorry, sailors. The british navy can never get enough sailors and and been in british navy was really terrible. The quality of life was quite awful. The food was often very bad, the pay was quite low and american merchants were happy to pay much higher wages. And you would have a lot more time on land. So that was a much cushier gig. So it was not unusual for british sailors to try and escape and then join the american merchant marine. So one of the ways that the british navy tried to manage this is they would search ships for any runaway british sailors. Now, sometimes they did find them, but sometimes they found americans they said were british and took them instead. But this was called imprisonment. It was very unpopular. Americans hated it. And it was one of the many lingering tensions in addition to those from the revolutionary war. So british soldiers were still camped out in forts out in the west from the revolution. A lot of americans hadnt paid their debts left over from the war to british merchants. These were just a couple of the issues on the table. Washington appointed justice john jay, whos pictured there on in the left picture. Hes the second from the left to be a special envoy to go to to negotiate a new treaty. There werent too many concerns about separate men of power at that particular moment. Jay went in fall of 1794. He negotiated that a treaty that bore his name. Now i believe that the treaty was the very best that could be had at the moment because jay had zero pro bargaining power. He had nothing to give the british and yet he still managed to get concessions. However, the treaty was very unpopular, especially in the south, because a lot of southerners felt their interests had been sold out and that jay had done so intentionally. The treaty came back in 1795, the senate did it, washington signed it, and then it went to the house of representatives because was the house had to raise funds for a committee as part of the treaty. The house hated the treaty, tried to scuttle it by asking for executive papers pertain to these negotiations. They convinced that washington and jay had been in cahoots to sell out the south. And if they could just have evidence of this cahoots in the papers, they could embarrass everyone and the treaty would fail. On march 30th, 1796, washington then wrote back and he asserted executive privilege for the first time. This is my favorite history letter of history letters. I highly recommend anyone here or at home go and look at it. Its available on a website called founders online. Its my favorite for a couple of reasons. First, it is again, precedent setting. Washington is asserting executive privilege for the first time, the words executive privilege do not exist in the constitution, and yet we still use them. Today. And its because of washington, he says. I recognize the right of congress to have important oversight. And indeed, he had complied several times before with previous. So he had demonstrated his belief in the importance in congressional. However, in this, he basically made a National Security argument. He said diplomacy requires secrecy. Diplomacy requires both sides being able to give and and if we reveal all those secrets, then foreign nations are not going to talk to us in the future. So we have to protect that privacy. However, if this was an impeachment inquiry, that would be a different story. He says impeachment because an impeachment inquiry, a higher level of oversight and would be a higher bar for him to have to cross in order to assert this privilege. He also was kind of daring them to impeach him, which obviously was going to happen. So i do love that particular goal in the letter. Then he says i was at the Constitutional Convention, i was there when we were discussing Foreign Policy and how it was going to be crafted. I was there when we decided that the president and the senate were going to make treaties. We did not include the house intentionally you are trying to usurp too much constitutional power. You are trying to put yourself into the treaty process and that is not permitted. And if you dont believe me, i have the journals from the convention and the department of state offices, and youre welcome. Come look at them. It is the ultimate mike drop moment and it is so sassy and washington is not usually sassy with congress. So again, highly this letter anyway, here they ultimately end up creating commission. They do you sign the treaty. It into into effect it does help with angloamerican relations for a bit and executive privilege is now is now finally a thing if only that were end of it at this point i should say john adams is vice and he agreed with mason that Vice President was totally unnecessary, useless, and he hated it and he thought it was the most painful position ever because he could do nothing. So during all of this, he was sitting silently because the senate had made it very clear that they wanted him to close mouth. Just as George Washington was getting ready to leave office and the election of 1796 was warming up, france decided that it would like another go at interference. The new french minister, the french ministers really honestly just have out for the early United States, decided that he was going to play a role in the election. He loved jefferson. He hated adams. And he was going to tell about it. So he published a series of letters a series of insult a series of attacks on the Washington Administration and adams as Vice President and adams as candidate and encouraged everyone to vote republican. This is jeffersonian republican. He also traveled up north to meet with a bunch of jeffersons allies to try and cultivate support for the new emerging jeffersonian and republican party. So the interference from the very beginning was out in the open. It was very clear france was not subtle about this behavior. Which brings us to john adams. John adams took office in 1797. He was second president of the United States. He was going to have a terrible time no matter what, because who came after washington was in deep, deep trouble, even at the very end of his presidency, when washing ten was really starting to be criticized a little bit, he was still very he was widely respected. He was adored. Even jefferson and madison kind of wanted him to serve a third term because they thought it would get the United States over that sort of fragile moment. So in steps, john adams, who is and i adore john adams, nothing like washington. He is shorter. Hes a little bit rotund and he has tendency to put his foot in his he wears his passions on his sleeve, which maybe we would appreciate today, but at the time was not considered to be appropriate masculine behavior. He hadnt served in the military he had served in the diplomatic corps. It was very resentful that that service was not appreciated in the same way. So he cut a very different figure. France saw this as an opportunity to pick up the pace in terms of the tensions and. They started to seize american that were going back and forth between u. S. Ports, British Ports, u. S. Ports in United States and British Ports in the caribbean and u. S. Ports in neutral nations. So this neutral sea behavior that we learned about this morning continue used to be a problem. Now they would seize these ships even though they were sailing under a neutral flag and not particularly carrying any war material. So no, no ammunition. And they would just seized them and they would seize all the goods and they would imprison the sailors. You can imagine roughly how. Well, this went over with the american people, especially because the sailors were treated quite poorly very early on in his presidency. John adams decided to send a three person envoy to paris to try and negotiate a new treaty, to try and figure out these tensions, to resolve these. That is what is that resulted in what we think. By the way, these are just some ships. And rigs from the big sur. Theres the american and french ships. Theyre battling on the high seas, just providing a little bit of background information. You know, one of the challenges about talking the 1800s is your pictures just there. That many options. Im very jealous of 20th century historians. They could film, they could sound we, you know, maybe get a painting if were lucky. So this this commission went to paris. They this resulted in what we think what we know now. The xyz affair. The american envoys were not official recognized by the French Foreign minister. My my french accent is so bad. Im so sorry, charles morris. Totally wrong. He sent a bunch of unofficial people to meet with him. These were known as the xyz agents to try and request various things from the american ministers before they could begin negotiations. They requested a couple of things. First around and the x, y, z agents were going to need a really huge bribe and they were pretty honest about this it. Just had to be a lot of money and they had to pay it up, right . Second aid. The United States needed to give a very big loan to france, which, again, they were pretty open. They were going to that to fight the war against the british. So that kind of would have been a problem with the neutrality concept. And third, they to denounce a speech that john adams had given may of 1797 when he declared that his his biggest, best goal was to retain peace. And in i put this i should not have named my talk a word that i have a struggle to say, but peace and inviolable faith with nations. So they wanted him at them to denounce president s speech. That was the thing. And they obviously said no to, all of these terms, but they kept at it. So for six months, these various ministers would come in different groupings. What approached the ministers at different times and try and get at various ways basically to get money and try and get the envoys to separate themselves from the american cause. Ultimately, this failed john marshall, one of the envoys. This was before he was the chief justice. He sent back to the United States when they were released. There was widespread outrage. Americans were horrified and it became the National Chant to say millions for defense not 0. 01 for tribute. So no bribes, lots of defense. The envoys came back and the next over the next year is a period that we think of as a quasi war. Congress did not actually declare war, but they did spend a lot of money to build up the new. There was now a navy department. So now we have four departments and an attorney general. There is a provisional, which Alexander Hamilton was nominally in charge of and had a great deal of fun designing the uniforms for and. They spent a lot of money on the National Defenses no war actually happened. The ongoing stuff on the high seas the of ships did continue but when france realized the United States was quite willing to defend itself, it really backed off and tolerated started sending signals behind the scenes to john adams through some of his friends and his son, john quincy, who was currently the minister to prussia in berlin, that he really like to negotiate and he promised that if john adams would send another round of envoys, they would be recognized officially and treated well. No one at the time in the federalist party, which was john adams party, wanted him to do this war was very good for their business. Not only did they get their army, they got their navy, but it made them very popular and it made the jeffersonian republicans very unhappy popular. But john adams once again going back to his purpose, believed in the importance of neutrality. He believed that United States had no business being war. He believed it was bad the country and he believed peace and inviolable faith, all nations. So did decide to send another three Person Commission to paris. It was the decision that ultimately broke the federalist and split his within the party. They were very mad him and it probably cost him the election of 1800. It ultimately however, was successful. So the three individuals here are william murray, whos on the left, the chief justice again with the chief justices as envoys there was a bit of a trend here. Oliver ellsworth is in the center and william richardson, dv. They went to paris they negotiated with napoleon who was now in charge of the new french republic. And they were able to negotiate the treaty of to fontaine, which was signed in 1800. It did these issues very much improved the french and american relationship. It really helped them to solidify by what it meant to be a neutral nation, especially on the high seas. So that treaty had ripple effects. A lot of different nations across globe. And while did not get to the United States in time for john adams to have these results for the election of 1800. It proved him right. It proved him right that diplomacy is worth a shot, that peace and inviolable faith was possible, that it was worth sacrificing in that partizan gain for the good of the country. I want to. I do not know what that white line is. My apologies. I want to end with sort of what i of as the bookend to this story. And it ends 40 years after its started so this story talked about started in 1774 i think i see the end of chapter one of u. S. History, u. S. Foreign policy and u. S. Independence. S ends in 1814. Most people dont learn all that much about. The war of 1812. Its kind of the forgotten war unless you live in washington, d. C. Of course. And for those listeners at home, thats because washington, d. C. Was burned down by the british. To be fair, we did have it coming. We burned down their capitol in york as well. But nonetheless, the war of 1812 was kind of a forgotten war because it ended basically in a tie in a stalemate. But it was an emotional victory because could say that for the second time they had stood up to the biggest empire in the world, the most powerful, maybe the maybe not the army, but the most powerful empire in the world. They had held their own. They hadnt been defeated. The second time it was referred to the moment as the second war of independence. They saw it as such and they saw it as. The final confirmation that the United States was independent from britain. As an aside, we have never again fought a i believe, unless im going to be cited here, weve never again fought a war against Great Britain. Theyve theyve medal. They theyve been tempted to medal. They do not end up meddling in the civil war. They were tempted, but they did not. So we have not fought a war since Great Britain, since. 1814. The person chiefly responsible for negotiate 18, the treaty of ghent that ended that war was John Quincy Adams. John quincy adams close the chapter that his father started in 74. He did indeed bring peace and inviolable faith, all nations, and he finished writing the story of what it to be an independent nation on a global stage and, how International Recognition is required so with that, i am a delighted to take your questions. For those of you at home, please, i would love to you to answer your questions i would love for you to be involved in this process. So type them into the chat box. I know all know how to do this. After two years of being on zoom. So dont be shy and. Everyone else please. I would welcome your questions. Would love to discuss whatever you would like. John adams or John Quincy Adams because i love them both. I have a question about their characterizations that information, which i actually never thought about before, the way that you described it sort of made it seem like a private criminal indictment are sort of intentionally written from that legal this kind of what i do for a living. So but i read it as an indictment i guess for the first time rethinking about it. Do you have any insight as to whether this was so thought out that they were sort of manufacturing it in such a way like said that that, you know, everyone else, the other monarchs are going to read it and say, oh, did this, this, this, this, this, yes, but that doesnt have anything to do with me, because this is obviously specific to him. Yeah, its a great question. So a fantastic book called american scripture by Pauline Mayer that looks at all of the declarations that existed up until the declaration of independence and was a long tradition back hundreds of years in Great Britain, and to a lesser extent other european nations of the way petitioned the monarch. One listed, one sort of goals and aims, and then of the reasons that that petition was warranted and the declaration fits within that construction. So it wasnt necessarily crafted as a legal document, but it was crafted to bring to mind all of these other that were a regular part of partizan and political parlance, so that people would understand exactly what they were trying to do. So it was very much designed to fit into that mold, which is not to take away from the brilliance of the language or, its founding element in our, but that it fit within a political culture and a political system that they were conversant in at the time. Thank you. Thank you. No, my question i think theres more coming. Yeah. Oh, sorry. Just one question about john adams and George Washingtons relationship. You know, i know watching like the hbo documentary about john adams, which i think is really interesting, shows kind of icy relations between the two men. A insight on the that humans relationship personal relationship. Yeah so this is one of those really frustrating instances where George Washington didnt write down why he did. He so often wrote down what he was going to do but didnt explain his thought process or if he did, it was an his letters to martha, which he asked her to burn upon his death. And she did very as a historian. So theres theres a couple of things that we should note about their relationship. First, they had known each other from a very for a very long they had been together at the Continental Congress. John adams was primarily responsible for washingtons nomination as commander in chief. The continental army. There was a great deal of respect between the two. And i think they actually initially got along well. John adams was then a little bit critical of washingtons leadership particular moments, and washington was very thin skinned and didnt forget criticism. So that was one blow against that relationship. They then didnt see each other for a while because john adams was out of the country and when he was selected as Vice President , washington initially very happy to have him because did represent really different experiences. Knowledge in washington thought that that was really generally quite useful. He stopped his cabinet with people who had a different expertise because he wanted their input and insight initially he did send that letter that i mentioned with all the different questions about social behavior and social practices. But then almost right away started to sort of distance himself from john adams. And there are two reasons that scholars possibly as to why that might be. The first is a concern about separation of powers that the Vice President was really more of a senate figure. He he john adams sat the senate every single day. It was in session. And so maybe it would be inappropriate to have a close relationship between president and the Vice President. As i sort of discussed, i dont think they were as concerned with separation as powers as we are today. And so i dont think that is the reason. I think the second and perhaps more reason is that in the summer of 1789, john adams lost a lot of his political clout when he advocated for a very ostentatious title for the president. I think it was Something Like his highness and elected the protector of our liberties. I dont think thats exactly right. But close watching john preferred a more simpler title like mr. President , which of course what we ended up having, and john adams became very unpopular because of that suggestion. Senators started calling him the dangerous or his rotund teddy and and i think that they were not very nice and i think that washington started to distrust john political judgment so he never invited adams to a single Cabinet Meeting. Adams did not attend one Cabinet Meeting. He didnt consult with him about political matters. They did socialize a lot. So they were often at the same events. They went to the theater, but john adams wrote letter back to abigail in. January of 1797, just before he took office, that after one dinner he stayed and talked washington. And it was the first time that they had had like a private conversation. So they were they were not particularly close. And i think it was because of a distrust of political judgment. The the the, the basic knowledge that the average american has about john adams is president , is the the jeffersonian wrap that he was pro british. And i think looking at it is Foreign Policy the cards he was dealt, we would all say why of course, you know. But do you think it was out of a realpolitik kind of a thing that he said, look at were a little country. We have our business relations, our finance, etc. Goes, united goes, uk or it was it was it or a revulsion against the atrocities of the french revolution or a polite mix of both. Well, i love this question because im currently the book that im writing is a book on john adams presidency. And it really argues that he has been highly overlooked, largely because of jeffersons. So thank you so much for that framing. It will be out in august of 2024 and im hoping it really changes how people think about adams presidency, his approach to Foreign Policy was shaped by a couple of things. First, he was by far well, with the exception maybe of his son by far the most experienced diplomat in the United States. He had been to most of the nations. He had seen how they worked. He had seen what concerns and their motivations were. And he was deeply convinced that no matter what the United States did, european nations were going to be squabbling and fighting with each other all of the time anyway. And by the way, he was right about that until until really postworld war two, although now you kind of have amend that statement because we are looking at another ground war in europe. So he believed that the United States was blessed by, a giant ocean separating our country from the europeans squabbling. And we should take advantage of that, therefore not throw ourselves into conflict. We had no business fighting and we had no horse in the race. We had no reason to care if they were constant at war. He did also deeply fear the anarchy and the violence of the french revolution. He was not alone in. That and thats one of the things that we forget as americans while they were living in this decade, in the 1790s, they were deeply attuned to what was happening in france. The newspapers reported it all time and there were eyewitness accounts that were being printed in newspapers that blood was literally running down the streets and the cobblestones were dyed red and smelled iron. So this was this was something that was very much the center of their mind. And when they were thinking about things like the peaceful transfer of power and elections and what it meant to have a new administration that was context with which they were thinking these things and were very careful to try and create a new tradition. Of linsey for that and for great talk. Lets talk a little bit about a son since no ones really mentioned john quincy, you would most people know that he did it to company john to europe as a kid later in life. Did john ever write about like was he a proud father of that . Was he what was their relationship later in life . Because he didnt see them progress in politics. Thank you so much for this question, john could not have been a prouder father if he tried. John adams was his greatest. Enjoy the light of his life, especially later on he was just so when washington appointed john quincy as a minister in his own right and washington wrote him a really nice letter, adams basically said, i dont im not asking for any, so i dont do that appointment for me. And washington said i would be basic im paraphrasing, but i would be a fool not to him, because hes one of the best diplomatic minds. And i want in our service and adams just dies. Hes so happy he cant handle my favorite letter. However he wrote when John Quincy Adams was elected president. And its very short. Its very simple. And he basically says, like, i dont have words and for john adams to not have words, its like really saying something. But he says like, i dont even know how to express what i am feeling. And and and it was it was returns. John adams was probably a hard father. He was very demanding John Quincy Adams was equally demanding of himself. But so that it was certainly sometimes hard. But he when he found out that his father had died on july 4th, same day as Thomas Jefferson, he felt as, though, it was some sort of fate and divine spirit. And every year in his diary after that on the anniversary of july 4th, he always marched to the independence, but he also marked the death of john adams and Thomas Jefferson and how personal all he felt that bittersweet ness of the day. So it was a extraordinary relationship. And i think in so many ways sort of bookends, this narrative. I like your drop story about his letter to the house, about them staying in their place, staying out of the treaty. But i am curious with all of that, what did anyone have any complaints at all about washingtons decision to send a chief justice from the Judicial Branch to negotiate treaty . I mean, were there anyone in his cabinet or anyone in the house or senate say, whoa, what are you doing . I find very curious and odd. Great questions. So there were complaints about jay because there was a concern that maybe he was too much of a federalist, that he was going to be too favorable to the north, that he wasnt going to be sympathetic to southern or western interests. But there were no complaints about the chief justice, and i think thats because their conception and understanding treatment of the Supreme Court was quite different than ours is today. It was not the sort of esteemed body thats in a marble temple set aside with Lifetime Appointments. I mean, they did have Lifetime Appointments if they wanted them. But few justices served that long. The average tenure was between six and ten years when. Jay came back. He declined to return to the bench, and instead ran for governor of new york because that was a more prestigious position. So i think that they were less concerned about it just because the Supreme Court was so much less powerful. And more questions good. All right. Well, with that, id like to invite up our five speakers to the where well have our half an hour ish panel where everyone will get to talk about all the great things that weve learned today. Pull on some of those common threads, a fun side note this very room where were in and you can visit at the lyceum. In 1841, John Quincy Adams was speaking in room about society and, civilization. So now you have to come to the lyceum learn more about his speech here in 1841. So if we could have our speakers chris up and im excited to introduce Phil Greenwell again n