American figures. I speak of Andrew Oshaughnessy, from the university of virginia, where he is also director of the international jefferson studies enter at the Thomas Jefferson foundation. Center at the Thomas Jefferson foundation. We are truly honored to have them here this evening. He is the winner of innumerable prices. Prizeorge Washington Book , and an award from the society of military history, among other book honors. He has the he is the author andold world, new world also the man who lost america, American Revolution, british revolution, and the empire. , because of myd job title, who i think was the best president. I am also asked who is the most ambitious, talented, influential, and even most interesting president. Now, i never know how to answer that except to say, probably jefferson hit all bars, the answer to all of those, which is why i am particularly pleased to have a man here tonight who can tell us exactly what why jefferson was just that. Nfluential, interesting so
Aaron burr. This is an hourlong event. And now, let me turn to why you are here this evening, which is not to discuss the 1968 election or gas crisis of the 1970s, but rather the 1800 election with Thomas Jefferson, and to hear from a man who has been arguably one of the leading scholars of that most fascinating president of american figures. I speak of Andrew Oshaughnessy, from the university of virginia, where he is also director of the international jefferson studies center at the Thomas Jefferson foundation. We are truly honored to have them here this evening. He is the winner of innumerable prices. The George Washington book prize, and an award from the society of military history, among other book honors. He is the author of old world, new world and also the man who lost America American revolution, british revolution, and the empire. I am often asked, because of my job title, who i think was the best president. I am also asked who is the most ambitious, talented, influential, an
Lifetime e a took place a lifetime ago. And its collapse seems so unimaginable. If i can indulge you for a second, the year before the collapse, i had organized a conference. Withe was more associated the cold war. Some of you were there. Of talk aboutt the integration of europe. , knownial the soviet was talking about the reunification of germany. Off desk also the time john and bill had begun their series on sovietamerican relations, the first time sovietamerican scholars got together. Scott armstrong had just come up with the idea of a National Security archive. But the end of the cold war . Not a chance and no discussion. Notequently, one is remarkable, what is now much closer now than we were then, by reaching a consensus regarding events in germany, and then of course, there aftermath. These questions concerned the drivers, whether they be individual, state, or international. These questions concerned consequences, whether they be international, state, or individual. These questi
Might expect to help them. But then the side effects of the radiation will be the side effects of the cancer, and the department of defense wasnt particularly interested in the effects of radiation on people with metastatic cancer, they wanted to know what the effects of radiation were on a healthy 23yearold pilot. And that could be best studied by irradiating people whose karch cancers were not going to respond to the radiation. Most of the patients who were irradiated were poor. Most of the patients who were irradiated were africanamerican. All of them had cancer. Some of them werent all that sick. Some of them were still ambulatory, some of them were still going to work. The radiation had some pretty serious effects. Out of the 90 people who were irradiated, 21 of them were dead within a month. And heres whats there are many things bothersome about this. We know that when you irradiate people, they have side effects. You can get nauseated, you can get very nauseated. But the departm
Kagans article and in the new republic of hes a wellknown intellectual. Maybe thats why he got it in the new republic. Other people can write a counter view. If were unhappy with the exceptional view of triumphalism, thats what we historians should try to do without getting caught in our own ideological biases, i would suggest. Im going to make half the panel feel old. I was in high school, i was a freshman when the wall fell. Sorry. At least you werent there when the wall went up. I dont know where my parents were. Let me play the role of splitter you suggested there was a contrast. You can say on the whop happened those that tried to stand against the crowds with violence, then sort of succeeded, but those who acceded to the crowd, kind of their regions went away. Where do we put romania in that . I think the roamanians like to be different. I think we have to put them in a third category because we should raoul that ceausescu did not have the opportunity to act as he wanted. He was