[laughter] it is a little daunting. I guess if you are looking at american politics from the beginning past the civil war talking about a paradox and a conflict and the. I tend to focus on is the early part of that arc and the improvisational nature because the nation was founded and the United States was a republic and what that means at that moment so we are not creating a monarchy but beyond that there is a ton of open ground. So in the early decade how it functions the tone of the government, how the nations would stand up what does it mean to be a republican in the ngworld of monarchy how do they get respect and equally what kind of nation will it be . So there is the broad ideological level so how democratic of a nation will this be . How is that land literally going to be arrested from other people . What kind of life of others not have it all . To have questionsin we are grappling with now questions about equity and equality those go back to the beginning of the republic and beyond so living in the moment we are living in no now, we deal with these big question and the legacy of undecided things and go all the way back. Where we inherently democratic . No. [laughter] we were not a monarchy and you have a very strong sense of that elite strong sense of their white and that they are creating a more democratic regime so there is the reason there is a bill of rights attached to the constitution so they were thinking about rights but with people thinking everyone has rights i dont like to call them parties but there were two different founders with the federalist and the republicans and those were the two camps in each had a different view of how they should be but even so with thoseic limited views so when i teach about this. Tell my students there are all kinds of words you have to think about because you can see it didnt mean the same thing as it did and to calculate what you are talking about looking at those buzzwords. How many points of view were there back then . Democrats and republicans and independents . Was that the case back then . It is more complex than that. We think of party the structure is the organization and back to the mindset first of all they assume the National Party the nation that could get something that overarching to buy int into, that did not even occur to them but beyond that it assumed there are republic meant viewpoints banging up against each other and the National Consensus with ultimately some kind of a decision or compromise and that was the point of how that banging up ofin opinions initially there should be there were federalist and republicans but even under the umbrella of political thought there were vast differences as a federalist in South Carolina that could meann something different. What were some of the improvisations . And what we teach about from political culture one of the wonderful things is they put all kinds of things in writing. John adams writing to a friend how should an american politician dress . To look at those british or french european aristocrats is that too much lace to be american . How many horses with the carriage which sounds trivial and goofy but on the other hand to seriously think about the fact those stylistic decisions will shape the tone and the character of the government and the nation and to set the precedent to have a big impact on the one hand its comical but the other is that it is not trivial. So we had several hundred white males elites with the buyin from the 4 million peopl people. On the one hand is a small group but on the otherd hand a hpopular let revolution so its important to remember whatevers going on at this time. About maintaining power there is a lot happening around them and part of that challenge isnt difficulties but challenges of that. Is the American People figuring out how to demand what they want and how the system works for them and if itw doesnt what can we do to make it work for them better . But they have the power in the American People understand that they had rights in some ways different people had a different understanding with a broader sense of what was goingri on but it was something that was determined more widely than what had come before. What was the whig party and what do they d believe. I will answer by moving ahead in time. So with parties and categories people like to go back in time between the parties present it goes all the way back to jefferson. And there are no lines and it comes to political b parties but the whig party for a while we had the Democratic Party and then the anti jacksonians people who really are not that but that becomes the whig party two main parties to jackson democratic with the common man and then on the other side with the bigen National Government and with a erdifferent point of view. If you are governor of massachusetts or president of the United States who had more political power . Whenever you want it to be. Ll[laughter] going back to the real founding there are people like the federalist who assume the bulk of the power is with the state and not with the National Governmentt and if that it compassed really above and beyond the constitution is brief on what it does theyll but they probably the governor of massachusetts with their loyalties and sense of belonging and pretty much would be grounded but in the 19h century if you are to pick up a newspaper from that. Then congress would be getting a lot more attention we assume now the president that really iisnt the early american way. At off its purposeful or if i missed it but the president doesnt play a large role as he plays today. Right. Partly deliver and partly reflects my interest and that is true that clearly the americans understood during the early founding. Trying to find out what that means people understand that congress if it is worked out at the groundlevel kind of rway with a member of congress and then to get into 18 forties then to see that they were speaking to their constituents and then creating that conversation back and forth so now we are focused on Different Reasons now we focus on the president with the 19th century. Would be recognized Congress Today as it was in the early republic. And we think what we assume congress should look like. It is a group of white men above and beyond that that are making decisions and having legislation in the United States is a lot more divided and in that case looks like what we would not accept. In your book the house and senate in the decades before the civil war yes this oratory on occasion yes union shaking decisions being made but underneath that pontificating and politicking was a rug the Antebellum Congress but it was not an assembly of demagogues in the institution with very human failings. That was an important point for me to make because of most people think about. Of clay and webster congress was people in black suits. And its very tough to say right off the cuff to say no. And it is unruly. And the book is about this Union Institution and not just the nations politics but americas understanding. What is the affair of honor . That is another fundamental thing that i talk about. And people assume thats all there was part of the point that i make is that the affair of honor was bigger than that. Its counterintuitive but then get people are running around with guns shooting and then to prove that you are willing to die for your honor. It is now a series of exchanges and negotiations with their names and reputation and their honor and once you get past that point that isnt the point that is a terrifying thing. And then allow somebody to shoot at you for those that is willing to die. And thoseup hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people. Why are we taught at the beginning of us history about the burr and hamilton dual . Partly because there is a thing about good stories and then jefferson versus hamilton and the king in those dramatic stories but if people teach that its these two men that is typical of that. And it does a lot of character work but not until recently has that been taught and understanding about government of politics and how that really works. What happened on that day and why . Burr and hamilton had been opponents for a long time and hamilton led the fuel of the opposition he thought of burr as a demagogue because he came the equivalent offa loyalty and wasty someone he thought was an opportunist early on in their relationship i consider that my religious duty and then to be bound and determined and in the election of 18 hundreds and with burr and jefferson and then would quash the chances and at that. 4 years later than he is running for governor. And then to say there is a newspaper report what hamilton said about you add a dinner party and now he needs to prove he is a man after he loses contest after contest so he axon that and it is hamiltons words. But in his mind is due over the so they exchange letters it does not go swimmingly they usually say those letters would you initiate i heard you said this about me is that true or false avowal or deny a deserve and Immediate Response as a gentleman of honor. You think how hard you had to respond you were in dangerous territory. He uses 18 words when one word will do with a very lengthy response and something more despicable. What do you mean and to be grammar lists what does that mean . Thats all by itself and at the end of that letter and then hamilton says by the way thats not an exception to that now otherwise i will fight for any words that i utter not a strategic it is offensive and he is offended and responds by saying youre not behaving like a gentleman so now they are both offended now it has spiraled to the point that this was the outcome. With this legal . No. It was statebystate every state had its own regulation regulations, the challenge and the punishment was different you could be publicly humiliated if you were in massachusetts it was a lot less daunting but was largely the lawmakers doing the dueling that tells you about the power that they had. Do we spend too much time with us set up or is that a microcosm of whats going on in the country . And to be front and center because it does tell you a lot about the political culture at the time and could tell you about those on the one emotional guts but it is just dramatic and the Vice President of the United States and the secretary of treasury and it makes sense thats the one. Bird did not get elected governor. He did not. But he had a reason to be irked. It was controversial i dont think he wanted to kill hamilton so he didnt go really wanting to kill. And before the dual he is asked about a doctor with me to doctor lets just get it over with you shoot at each other you prove your men of honor and you shake hands but tragically he isis a villain for killing hamilton but i dont think that was the aim i dont think that was his purpos purpose. What was his lifelike after that . And vulnerable but didnt try to kill people in duels. But then you become vulnerable all the enemies of various politics and newspaper editors and to end up in South Carolina he hides out for a while. And then goes back to inshington then finishes the vice presidency and then its not clear what hes doing and then something will happen in the vicinity of mexico and then to have a different kind of power. With that very treasonous effectut out west now with local politics and National Politics and has a very interesting exile hanging out with intellectuals and then comes back to new york as a tourist attraction people like to go office that i am a hamiltonian so he does not have an easy time with it. There are lots of accounts of members ofon congress and what they say you can see the anxiety about him. So those are difficult years only one of politicians ever describe being politics he actually says he is engaged in politics for honor and pprofit. [laughter] be hes not the only one who found it fun. And then just to be more honest he is enjoying it. Who is the other . The other one that says he considers politics fun and with that correspondent i dont think its more than those two times. Professor you said you are a hamiltonian. I guess that means fascinating that i have spent a lot of time andnd energy why he did what he did and in that sense because many scholars that m. Grabs them and there are many. Besides the tendollar bill and a wellknown musical what is his legacy . One of the thing that he is known for and minetta really early point to believe the National Government needed to be strengthened. So very early on the loudest supporters for the National Government from the Constitutional Convention pushing to federalize so now we can look back on the longterm and save some strengthening is good and some is not but it mattered a lot so as part of that legacy the national superstructure that we take for granted with a major bowl to do that. I want to play a little bit of audio tell us what we are listening to. Its very hard not to do this. [laughter] that is the ten dual commandments from the musical and its largely taken from the chapter of my first book which talks about the dual and the rules. You had a part in the musical . He did use my work when he was writing and i discovered afterwards he found my work and made use of that and what is comical and bizarre to me the first time i saw the play off broadway i was sitting in the audience and besought together and the song came on and i said a dueling song this is excellent like this is even better. That was remarkable the book that is really based on is the biography of hamilton so i thought that really cant be me but then there was a lyric that refers to a document that i found at the new york historicalt society about the doctor turning his back with deniability and i heard that line came from the stage and i said thats my document. [laughter] thats my document. So then i got to talk to them later and i said that song is that my chapter . They tha said of course it is. So ultimately that became a Broadway Musical so that was a mind blowing experience. How accurate is the musical . For sure it is political theater it came out of work to make people aware in the. That they were not aware of. It reminds people about the contingency and in the revolution in the c constitution and blah blah blah and when you are in that moment so it reminds people about that contingency that these are real people and as they feel their way to the process now that said there are many things that are historically inaccurate and things that are not discussed like the institution of slavery is not discussed. But to me my response was there is a lot of history in there and more than i would have expected to see that as i made this profoundly wonderful and those that have become interested in the time. Or to grab hold of that let me teach you about what really happened or the reality of everything that happened so in a sense it has created a great teaching opportunities. And then that tweet you sent out a couple days ago you do tweet a lot interesting in my hamilton seminar i asked how many had seen amol time on dish hamilton but then i read applications forap the course and the majority mentioned the musical and had an impact. Look at what they can do. I do tend to ask what brought people to the class and in this case i explicitly said with hamilton media they are not crazy about it anymore but the class is limited in size if you already preregistered what brings you to the course and a lot of people said we really liked the hamilton musical and we have a lot of questions. That is a wonderful thing i guess its not really advertising but except for the two weeks after those first two weeks there is no other history book and it is thematically arranged of what america was and revolution and Party Politics very explicitly does not take sides when one is right and one is wrong and then we grapple with it. Because it depends what they find and focus on in those letters. And i clearly have read those letters and just depending on the questions thats a fun course to teach. And on the same day in response to a formery, student you tweeted about john adams book the biography was a think tank that sent more people into my seminars than anything else. For years. And for anything that they want. So why are you in the course i dont want a gale answer but i am curious about this take the time. Or i saw ar movie. I give them full permission for whatever they want so for a while. John adams biography and i am curious now. And now i want to learn more about the time. Th but thiss time i asked baby at this point because younger people are interested in the musical maybe they are more focused on it i dont know but 30 people are trying to get into the course and one said specifically i didnt really like the musical but i want to learn more about the time. Which is great as a teacher, excellent. Asked questions. Once a month we invite an author to talk about his or her body of work this month is yale professor historian and author Joanne Freeman author which came out in 2001, Alexander Hamiltons writings and has edited that and in the field of blood is the most recent book coming out last year. Shall be with us the next hour and a half to take time and to give her a question so we will take your comments through social media we will go through those addressesre Facebook Twitter and email just remember at book tv is the part of that to get a comment to us. How di you get interested . Probably the bicentennial. If you are old enough to remember this time. It was everywhere commercials. Every day and the reporter dispatch had a bicentennial moment i was cutting out all the newspaper articles i was absorbed in 1776 and i think all of that came together to make that time. What the hamilton musical has done it was real it didnt seem boring like people on the ground i was 13 or 14 years old. I started to read biographies and i actually think i started and then i just went i remember reading in early biography of john adams even one that is not a biography per se i started with a and then i got to hamilton and then i stopped because he was strange in comparison to the others i was read