Doubtless, many of you here in this room know mhs is home to the adams family papers and an extensive collection largely comprised of correspondences, letters, books, diaries, literary manuscripts, speeches, legal and business papers of both the senior and junior president s adams as well as all the members of this preeminent political dynasty. These documents remain so vital in our efforts to understand the evolution of american democracy, diplomacy and identity. Mhs strives to make the adams papers and our entire 40 million item collection available to anyone with an interest in american life, culture and history and we do it for free. If you have value resource and enjoyed programming like todays talk and you are not an mhs supporter i encourage you to do so. Tonight represents one of many programs seminars, exhibitions and workshops that we host. If you dont already have a copy of our new Spring Summer calendar grab one on the way out and its on her website. I want to mention we wi
Trace the arc of our nations history. From 1783 to 1861, the political history of our nation. Wow, i will use the word hate. Back is a little daunting. Trace the art. Im to do the historian thing and speak generally. I guess it would save your looking an american in politics, from the beginning straight through, we could even go past the civil war, youre talking about paradoxes and conflict and prop. The period that i tend to focus on is the early part of the arc, and its the improvisational nature of the the really fascinates more than anything else. The nation was founded in a world of monarchy. The United States was a republic. What the means was was not clear at the moment and people knew the they were trying to do something the wasnt act. Were not going to be creating monetary and the president isnt going to be a king but beyond the there was open ground. Theres a lot of improv in those early decades about with the nation is and how it functions, the tone of the government, how th
In conflict a and improv. Hee time i tend to focus on is the early part of that arc and thats the improvisational nature of that that really fascinates me more than anything else. The United States was a republic. People knew that they were trying to do something that wasnt that. Beyond that there was a lot of open ground. There is a lot of improv in those early decades about what the nation isns the nations. How is this new nation going to get any degree of respect and equally they are concerned. On every level. There is a broad kind of ideological level in which that is true. I who is going to on the land and house that land. What kind of a rights will some people have. A lot of the questions that we are happily with now they go back to the beginning of the republic and beyond. Living in a moment that thehe moment that im looking at now. And they go all the way back. We werent a monarchy. And americans have a very strong sense or elite right. They thought they were creating a more de
Nations history from 1783 to 1861, the political history of our nation. I guess i want to say if youre looking at american politics from the beginning strawing through, past the civil war, youre talking about par dockses and conflicts improv. The period i tend to focus on more at the early part of that arc, and its the improve vacational nature of that, that fascinated my more than anything else of. The nation was find founded in a world of monarchy and the United States was a republicful. What that means wasnt clear and people knew they were trying to do something that wasnt there. The president wont be a king but beyond that there was a lot of open ground. So theres a lot of improv in those early decades about what the nation is, how it functions, the tone of the government , and how this nations going to stand up amongst the nation of the world that are other kind of nations. What does it mean to be a republic in a world of monarchies and how is the new nation going to get any degre
But i had a wonderful professor at Columbia Law School who later moved to stanford, jerry gunther. He was in charge of getting clerkships for columbia students, and he called every federal judge on the Second Circuit, in the southern, eastern districts of new york, and he was not meeting with success. So he called a columbia graduate, judge edmund palmieri, who was a columbia undergraduate, Columbia Law School graduate and always took his clerks from columbia. And he said i strongly recommend that you engage ruth Bader Ginsburg. And palmieris response was ive had women law clerks, i know theyre okay, but shes a mother, and sometimes we have to work on weekends, even on a sunday. So professor gunther said give her a chance, and if she doesnt work out, a young man in her class whos going to a Downtown Firm will jump in and take over. So that was the carrot. It was also a stick, and the stick was if you dont give her a chance, i will never recommend another columbia graduate as your law c