and so today we certainly have a speaker that is all of those. you know, i've tried to follow our speaker from from a publication of the gulf war account ever since then and everything he produces i'm always incredibly oppressed impressed. this year our mason lecture is renowned pulitzer prize-winning historian and journalist note that we got both of those terms in their historian and journalists rick atkinson and rick will talk about the long history of citizen soldiers in american history. certainly, not just in world war ii but in a range of conflicts and joining him is our own senior historian, dr. robert citino in this conversation. so with that i'm anxious to hear this. i'll be quiet and turn it over to rob. thanks so much. rick it's always a treat to be with you on a stage or frankly anywhere. i always feel a heck of a lot smarter after we've talked for an hour, you know, there's a false dichotomy between so-called scholarly history and so-called popular history and my friend rick atkinson here is someone who's completely obliterated that distinction because he's a one of the preeminent scholars of the us army in world war ii and a lot of other things and he's also extremely popular in a way that many of us are jealous. so it is really really wonderful rick. thanks for coming. robert's always a pleasure to be with you anywhere on stage stage or offstage great. so you've written the first volume of a trilogy now on the american revolution, it's entitled the british are coming if you don't own it yet you will at some point in your life. i'm confident. it's it's brilliantly written. it's brilliantly researched. how different is it? researching a book on the american revolution from a book on world war ii. i mean you've been in the george the third archives you just spent a decade of your life talking in conversation. let us say with with eisenhower and patton and the great figures of the us army and world war ii how different is it talking to george the third? well, he's got a funny accent. well, one of the reasons that i decided to as a writer to leave world war ii and go back in time to an earlier century and our first war as a nation was i wanted to understand better where our 20th century and 21st century force had come from whence they derived and that required going back to look at the revolution in the continental army and and to understand the forces. you have to understand their adversaries whether you're studying world war ii or whether you're studying the revolution our adversary was our last king george the third. his papers are kept by queen elizabeth ii. she owns all the georgian papers the four men named george who became king in the 18th and 19th century and she decided in 2015 to open them up for the first time to to scholars part of a digitization process. and i was one of the first allowed in to take a look i was the first i went there in april of 2016. i would show my badge every morning at the henry the 8th gate at windsor castle just west of london and show my badge again at the norman gate and then i would climb a hundred and nineteen stone stairs and 21 wouldn't steps to the garrett of the round tower begun by william the conqueror in the 11th century. and there the papers it's where they keep them and gorgeous oversized red binders. george was his own secretary until late in life when he began to go blind and he kept not only his correspondence himself. he not only wrote the correspondence. he made the copies himself, and he's a great list maker lists of my regiments abroad from 1765 to 1775 recipes for insecticide. theater reviews he would set a stealing mean was a particularly effective brutus. and as you pull through these papers you really have a sense of being in his presence of having a tactile relationship with him and it's for me particularly illuminating to see his strategic misconceptions because the war goes wrong for them. the war goes wrong in part because george and his ministers. had misconceptions about who we were and what we were willing to fight for what we were willing to die for so george believed for example that were the american colonies to slip away and you can find this in the papers? he's very explicit about it. it would be the end of the british empire which was a new creation as a consequence of their victory in the seven years war the french and indian war as we call it where the empire had come into being and they had gotten a huge tracks of land canada half billion fertile acres west of the appalachians sugar islands in the west indies parts of india, and he believes that if those fractious rebellious americans slip away, it's going to encourage rebellions in ireland canada the sugar islands. he's quite wrong about that, but he is willing to go to war against his own people for eight years and watching the wheels turn in his head is was a fascinating experience now clausewitz says who i've mentioned a few times at this conference already. you can never it's a drinking game. you can never you should never deceive yourself as a commander by what kind of warrior fighting is this sort of the first decision. you have to figure out what it is. then kind of move from there so, you know, the british are coming takes us from lexington to princeton. so april 1775 the big outbreak too just into the new year 70 1777. in terms of world war ii, where would that be for the united states? how far are we through the saga or is it i don't know catherine pass or something. um, i think it's probably closer to tunis in may of 1943 where after some real lows the allied force american and british wins through and clears the north african coast, and we have landed of course in 1942 in morocco and algeria and the seven-month campaign through the atlas mountains. and finally we drive the germans in italians. we destroyed the german italian army in north africa at that point and i think that that corresponds roughly to where we are after washington's really unbelievable victories twice at trenton and once it princeton we are in early 1777 at that point. it's you know to paraphrase churchill. it's it's not the beginning of the end, but it's probably the the end of the beginning in both those wars. i'm really fortunate right now that there are a few in the world who could even take. crack at the question. i'm about to ask other commonalities between these wars you spent a big chunk of your life studying both of them now. i mean certainly, you know, the technology was different machine guns from from flintlock muskets in the end. is that sort of thing matter? what are the commonalities between the two wars you're studying? yeah, i mean they're completely different on some levels the the weaponry the communications the transportation all of that is as different as the 18th century is from the 20th century. i think that the thing that they most have in common are our first war as a nation and our biggest wars the nation is they're both existential. our very existence obviously is predicated on winning the american revolution our existence as an independent people our way of life. you know, i think it's not too much of a stretch to say and people been talking about it here for a couple days now that our existence as a as a people and what we most sincerely believe is that stake in world war ii so most wars are not existential some wars shouldn't be fought most wars. probably shouldn't be fought but i think that those wars that are existential go on a special shelf because of the stakes that's involved and i would put those two in that category. we had presidential counselor and eminent historian john morrow here yesterday. i think you may still be in the room somewhere and he he said, you know, there's some wars that are necess some wars are necessary all wars are bad. but some you have to fight you have no real choice any way either one of these wars you've studied so deeply anyway, either one of could have been avoided. um, you know in the case of world war, i think if stauffenberg had been a few years earlier and had been more successful or hitler got run over by a bus or something like that. it's hard for me to i mean we heard the the panel earlier this morning talking about the final solution. alex talked very eloquently about what they had in mind and i think when they're thinking in those terms that early in the conflict, it's hard to imagine how you're going to avoid war. they're they're going down a very dark road very early so i don't see how world war ii gets avoided we can go in different directions it can turn out differently, but how it is avoided is hard for me to see in the case of the american revolution. i think that war could have been avoided if there had been if someone had the wit to envision say the commonwealth no one could see it no one could see that britain eventually would have a loose arrangement in which there was kind of a collection of nations canada australia and so on that had a kind of sentimental attachment to the monarchy were independent were aligned in their commitment to basic western values, but it's it's a very loose. now had that been proposed in 1774. maybe maybe it gets avoided but that is not the way georgia third lord north is prime minister and the rest in britain. see it blows will decide. this is what george says in 1774 blows must decide and when you've got that kind of attitude, it's pretty difficult to see how you're going to avoid blows, you know, maybe the commonwealth came about big precisely because of what happened in the late 18th century. it's certainly influenced thinking about how we can avoid this kind of messy relationship with our vassal states right? let me ask you a counterfactual the million dollar scholarly term for something that didn't happen. well what happens if we if the united states or the american college what happens if we lose these wars i asked you to speculate a bit on a defeat in the american revolution or maybe even more grandiose terms of defeat in world war ii, but the amrov what happens if we lose? well scholars love counterfacturers because you can never be wrong. no one can argue. washington is captured or killed if the congress is arrested and the basically the rebellion is suppressed. it's hard for me to see that that is a steady state for britain for one thing the american colonies won the revolution begins. there's two and a half million of us 500,000 are black slaves, but we have the most explosive population growth on the planet. we have a population that's growing three times faster than britain. it's a rate of increase that has never been seen in europe. so we're going to get big and muscular and we've got all the advantages of a potential continental power how britain keeps that under control now, they kept the kept the indian subcontinent under control for a long time, but i think it's going to be very difficult for them and if they win. they're going to have two million rebellious angry colonists that are going to have to be police. it's going to be very expensive for them some of the opponents in britain like edmund burke like like chatham the former william pitt they see this is this is really expensive if we win. it's expensive fighting it and it's expensive we win so i don't see that the you know, the status quo is going to obtain long. world war ii this is a this is the big one. feel free to go as far as you want. you know, i think you're well positioned you're fluent in german. i could say something but i won't. we'd all be singing deutschland new morales today as the same goes. yeah. okay, great. that's good. one of the things that bounces off of every page of this book you're treatment of the american revolution rick is that this is we said the revolutionary war the american revolution. it's also a kind of civil war. it's a there's there's domestic impact here and and that separates it from world war ii. no, i mean that's one of the areas in which the two yeah conflicts diverges. yeah, that's absolutely right rob. the the opposition to and american entry into the war ends when the war begins the america first movement dies on the vine and there really is a sense of 140 million people in america row in the boat in the same direction. the american revolution is of a revolution, but it is also the first civil war it is a nasty civil war. it anticipates the civil war in a lot of ways modern scholarship estimates that probably 18% of the white american population the two million white americans. were loyalists that they actively supported the crown and the crown's ambitions here in some cases actually fighting in loyalist units under british. a higher command that is not a significant enough portion of the population as it turns out to prevail, but it is significant enough to cause nasty fracture in the body politic. and so you see right from the beginning the rebels let's say us recognizing that draconian measures to suppress dissent. are paramount if they're going to prevail they're already up against it because they're fighting one of the best professional armies in the world. they're fighting the greatest navy the world has ever seen in the royal navy. they're fighting 30,000 german mercenaries the hessians and their thank you. i just want to shout out to the germans and the american revolution. thank you. that's right, and they're fighting this fifth column in the loyalists. so if you are loyal to the crown or even if you're a fence straddler unsure of the wisdom of rebellion against your government you are subjected to dreadful treatment. it's preparation of property jailing exile. execution in some cases and this gets nastier as is the want of civil wars as it goes along so that by the time we're in the the back end of the war most of which is fought in the south it is a brother against brother family split apart family split apart by irreconcilable political differences. benjamin. franklin's son is the royal governor of new jersey. he remains loyal he is jaled he is sent into exile franklin hates him. wow, he hates his son. it's his only son. it's the son who helped him with a kite flying experiment. i mean, it's the joy of his life and that's what civil war does to the country at that time. we can get a little so they're sort of strategic level. let's get back maybe into the operational level for a moment george washington. needless to say, please a major role in the book and i presume in the next two volumes as well. why was washington such a great leader? let me maybe go a little deeper there see more in eisenhower's this is sort of how i was brought up to think of george washington and by that i mean enable administrator a guy who makes different factions work together. make sure all the moving parts are oiled and so more of an eisner perhaps less of a great captain less of a napoleon or a frederick the great you know, i had the privilege of living with eisenhower's metaphorically for 15 years, and i'm now in the same cohabitation with the washington were eight years into our arrangement and the deeper i saw into eisenhower's more. i admired him and i'm feeling the same way about washington now on the surface. they're quite different washington is to the manor born. he's wealthy and he becomes very wealthy when he marries the richest widow in virginia, martha dandridge custis. he has combat experience as a virginia militia colonel fighting under british command during the french and indian war. he's seen a lot of comedies seen some really nasty stuff. eisenhower's never heard a shot fired in anger when he becomes the theater commander in the caves of gibraltar in october 1942 before operation torch in the invasion of north africa. so there are a lot of differences a lot of differences in what they command eisenhower. commanding millions washington's army is really more than 20,000, but they have some some similarities one is that they're not very good tacticians. washington makes mistakes. he just he's a surveyor so he should know land right he should be able to read the ground. battle of long island. he misreads the ground he gets out flanked his army gets mauled he makes mistakes that brandywine fort washington on the current upper west side of manhattan. he misreads that 3,000 american troops, november 19, 176 are trapped and killed or captured. he's not a great field marshal. he is not a great captain eisenhower's the same way eisenhower's straits and messina a battle of sicily. he doesn't see what's happening in front of him. four german divisions are going to get away and we're going to fight them over and over and over again on the mainland of italy. he's at feliz with bradley. he doesn't really see what's happening at filez that the encirclement is not complete. okay, i could go on but that's not really his job. eisenhower's job. his job is to be a supreme commander his job is to hold together this fractious international coalition against all of the centrifugal forces that pull at every coalition. washington is somewhat the same way. he's got a higher calling now. he's more of a battlefield commander because he's he's their responsible for moving regiments around but he's also responsible for holding together. what will become an international coalition. there there most similar i think rob first of all, they're two of the twelve generals in american history who become president. but they're most similar in that they are the best political generals we've ever had. and by that i mean in washington's case after he takes command of the continental army in at cambridge in july of 1775 that month he writes seven letters to his political masters the continental congress. his correspondence is full of letters to colonial governors. they become state governors in 1776 committees of safety. he is really working the political structure part of this is to demonstrate his subordination to civilian control. this is a very fraught subject in the 18th century. they all know who cromwell was and he wants to demonstrate he's making this up as he goes along and we still abide by it today. he's making the clear declaration that civilians are running the war they are controlling him eisenhower. similarly gifted in this way. he's chosen as a supreme commander of the allied expeditionary force because as roosevelt says he has extraordinary political instincts. he's the best politician among them the generals eisenhower's think this is a slur and again, both of them recognize that the to again quote churchill the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them and their job is going to be to hold together an allied coalition and eisenhower's case. there are 60 countries fighting in the united nations lowercase and the case of washington. he starts by in 1775 telling new englanders. yes. i know you've hated french canadians for 150 years because they have been conducting raids into new england with their indian allies. be nice to them. nice to them we need them and of course the french are going to come into the war in 1778. he has a sequence of very close and important relationships with lafayette rochambeau degrasse and others that i think really unifies their generalship over a couple of century. that's fascinating. i you know as i was reading the book again based on what i've always thought about washington even some of what you've said. you know, it's a battle commander though. washington does have his moments and they're the sort of climax of the book man, you know spoiler alert. we win the american revolution and tell everyone how rob come on so so the the book ends this volume ends. i should say, you know with the two trentons victories of trenton and princeton you say george double down at trenton. can you second trip tell us about yeah, and i don't want to sell them short as a as a field commander because he does have his moments and these are the best of the moments that he has. well, he's desperate. he's he's been kicked out of new york. he's been overrun at fort lee just across the hudson river on the jersey side from new york. he is being pursued across new jersey. his army is less than 3,000 soldiers. it's the size of a latter-day brigade. that's the continental army. and they are bedraggled and they're they're dispirited. he crosses the delaware river into pennsylvania. they lick their wounds for a while. he is really desperate. it's december of 1776 and he comes up with this crazy idea to cross back into new jersey across the delaware. you know, what happens on christmas night 1776. he catches a german garrison at trenton by surprise. they are not drunk incidentally one of the many myths about the american revolution the commander colonel rawl is a very fine a combat veteran. he's not drunk. but they are surprised and they're destroyed. and so he collects his prisoners. there's hundreds of them crosses back into pennsylvania and instead of taking a victory lap and saying, you know, yay for me. i finally won one. he he doubles down and he crosses again. back into new jersey and this time he baits the british who are basically the british army is at princeton. 15 or 20 miles up the road and he baits them into attacking him at trenton where he has the high ground on the s and pink creek and slaps him around pretty well, but darkness falls, it's not clear how he's gonna get back across the delaware. it's full of ice if he retreats southeast potentially trapped in south jersey. and so what does he do? he goes east he goes east around the left flank of the british army to princeton where there's a rear guard left there and and he destroys the rear guard. by this point the british heads are spinning. you know, who is this guy? fighting so far and then he goes north into the high ground of new jersey where he goes into winter quarters. he's safe there the british can't get adam and there he's going to refit rest. it's a pretty brilliant campaign. i mean, no less a battle captain than frederick the great looked at it and said, whoa, it's exactly what frederick the great said. i was reading this paper just that that's the german that's the german version. you know, if you need a german endorsement frederick the great is as good as it is as good as it gets but yeah those i will recommend to the the audience this portions rick brilliantly written it had me carried along in the excitement, but that's you know, a definition of the american military. we will surprise you and bayonet you in your bed christmas night if necessary for for the liberty of the liberty. yes. washington is the indispensable man. i don't i guess that would be roosevelt for world war ii perhaps but maybe eisenhower's washington for the american revolution. yeah, i i think that's fair. it's almost a cliche about him now. i mean first of all when he dies at mount vernon in december 1799, he has 300 more than 300 slaves. you cannot square that circle morally. and i know in his will he freed those that were under his control but nevertheless he is a slave master. and his affluence his success in life as with the so many of the southern plantation owners. is built on slavery. so there it is. but he is the indispensable man commanding the indispensable institution the american army the continental army. because he's got a number of other things going for him for one thing like he is very robust. when eisenhower becomes eisenhower's born in 1890, so he's 53 when he becomes supreme commander the mediterranean. washington is a decade younger. uh, he is according to jefferson the horsemen of his age. he's six two he when he comes into a room. you have no doubt who's in command. he's got great command presence this counts when you're a commander under any circumstances, but when you're in a you have a small war a small army your personal leadership your personal ability to convey conf. is is very important like eisenhower he? he has the ability to change his mind. he listens to subordinates for example, he's against inoculating his troops against smallpox. this is a very current issue. well, smallpox is the king of terrors. it's a terrible way to die. it makes covid look like a bad cold. and smallpox had ripped through the american army during the invasion of canada in a 75-76 and washington had been against the crude method of inoculation that was available in which basically somebody with a smallpox pustule on their arm cuts. it open takes a straw or a feathered dips it into the pus that's in there. cuts themselves on the leg or the arm and swabs this toxic stuff there. i want to thank you for coming to new orleans. it's time to corral, you know. so if you think getting vaccinated is problematic. about 1% of those who are given the smallpox deliberately this way die. about 13% or higher of those who get it naturally die. it's a very mortal disease washington is against initially inoculating his force because it requires that they be quarantined for several weeks. and that makes them vulnerable and it also means that they're they're capable of spreading smallpox if they're not quarantine. he changes his mind when he's at morristown after the victories trenton in new jersey. it changes his mind because he sees that i got to do it. i've got to do it so he issues issues in edict you will not come into this army unless you have been inoculated. and he enforces it rigorously. so that's an example of his flexibility. he's got a great eye for subordinate talent eisenhower's too washington sees that a 25 year old overweight boston bookseller named henry knox. is going to be the father of american artillaries a genius as a gunner or that 30 something quaker anchorsmith from rhode island named nathaniel greene will become one of the great battle captains captains in american military history. he's and promotes them and gives them responsibilities. so. these are some of the reasons why he is the indispensable man. rick you speak of the foundational truths of the american revolution and you used i believe you say even if there are only aspirational which means we're still trying to arrive at them. well, what are those foundational truths and i'm just you know while you're on the subject to foundational truce exists for world war ii, what do they tell us about this thing? we still are trying to work out called democracy. yeah, it's a really great question rob. i i think there are foundational truths in in the case of the american revolution. they're expressed. most eloquently by thomas jefferson. we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that's about his foundational as it gets now it's aspirational and it's a lie. because there are 500, black slaves in the country, but it's what we want to be. and it's embraced people get it. even if you're unlettered that the first third of the declaration of independence. is this soaring? dream of what we can become. you know, i think for world war ii the four freedoms. occur to me, this is roosevelt in the state of the union address in early 1941. freedom of speech freedom of worship freedom from want freedom from fear certainly, it's aspirational. we've hardly purged the world of those things. roosevelt, you know on occasion talks about what he is hoping that comes out of this war. he you know, self-determination is largely the mantra that we we see now he wants to eradicate. empires obviously the japanese and german empire have gotta go but he has no brief for the british empire or the french empire. it's a source of a great disappointment to churchill. and of course he wants to replace it with an american empire which he does. and of course the soviet empire is going to be there parallel, but those hopes for a man kind that is precluded from from being fearful from wanting from not being able to speak freely from not being able to worship as they want to foundational truths. these are things that we still believe in and he expressed them on behalf of all of us, i think. i'd like to just give a nod to the title of this panel my last question before i hand you over to the tender mercies of the audience. there's always funny but this panel is called the greatest generations. no, would you like to say about this generation that fought and won the revolution they pledged their lives their fortunes their sacred honor with beautiful beautiful rhetoric and if you will how to how would you compare them to the generation that one world war ii the one we celebrate here at the museum yeah, well, this is where i -- some people. oh, here we go. that inoculation talk i'll do respect to my close friend our friend tom brokaw. i've always had issues with the greatest generation for two reasons, and it's not at all reflective of my admiration god. i've devoted a large part of my life to commemorating celebrating those who fought in world war two, but first of all, which generation are we talking about george marshall born in 1880 george patton in 1885 dwight eisenhower's 1890 or the generation a trigger pullers born mostly in the 19 teens 1920s my father born in 1924 went into the army in 1942. so that doesn't have the same ring the greatest generations, but beyond that i think it tends to diminish the contribution of generations that were just as critically important to us. as a nation starting with that revolutionary generation now. you know, that's a country of two and a half million people versus the country of 140 million people in the in the in world war ii, but the generation that commits itself to fighting for eight years. so that we can be here today as we have convened in this wonderful country. i think you know, you can't suggest that they're not the greatest generation. the civil war generation fighting to hold together the union fighting to destroy slavery. that's a pretty great generation. so rather than narrow it down and and when i raised this issue with broke all he says that's my story and i'm sticking to it. what's next rick? after the american revolution you have your amongst 300 your closest friends here, and i'm sure none of us will tell. well, i'm pretty busy for the next number of years. i'm probably eight months from finishing the research on volume two of the revolutionary war trilogy. all of us are in the game are aware of a new word in our vocabulary the semi-quincentennial it's the 250th anniversary, which is coming up beginning in 2025 250th anniversary of lexington and concord. and so we have our eyes on that and then beyond that life will take care of itself. that's great. i want to thank you rick. what a great conversation. always always a treat rick atkinson. thank you. and so we've arrived at the portion of our program. i'm going to hand things over. i think i see jeremy collins. we'll start to your right towards the back gentleman. would you agree or disagree with the statement that another george washington's assets with the fact that he had no male children? hmm well, he had no male children it is believed because he was probably sterile. we know that martha who had children from her first marriage was not she was capable of bearing children, and he was probably sterile because again, we can go back and talk about smallpox. he had smallpox as a young man on a trip the only trip he ever made outside of the united states outside of america was to barbados and he contracted smallpox. he was pretty sick and it can make you sterile and it's so it's believed that he had no issue as a consequence of that. he had no male children of his own, but he adopted martha's he was a loving stepfather embraced her extended family and the his own extended family because he had siblings who had kids and so on. yeah, the question presumes that there's concern that there'll be a dynasty somehow washington dynasty. he's taken very careful pains to ensure, you know as he moves from being a general and resigning the command of the continental army and going back to mount vernon incidentally in eight years. he's only in mount vernon once he only goes home once in eight years and that's for a very short visit and he commits himself to you know the the peaceful exchange of power when he's president after two terms, that's it if he'd had a son would there have been a you know rallying around the washingtons. i kind of doubt it american politics by that point where now we're talking about 1799 american politics are pretty robust. there's a lot of a really smart capable guys out there john adams jefferson madison monroe, you know the list and it's i think difficult to see that the country would have countenance this kind of dynastic succession again, it's just it's a remarkable man, though who says well now i've had enough i've had enough power. i've had enough this i've had enough that i'm done exactly right. next question is to your halfway back with connie. i'd like to take a little issue with something. you said earlier in your comments that george the third was in fact wrong when he said that. if they lost the american colonies that they would lose the empire. the american revolution in fact was cited as an example for lots of decolonializations or wars of colonial liberal liberation south africa india, both vietnames and so forth. so, isn't it just a case of george the third being right, but it taking a little longer. well, we're all right if you give us enough time. i mean look the the american colonies states split away and the british defeat in the war because it becomes a world war and they're fighting not only the americans but the french the spanish the dutch they've angered the russians it costs them. there's no doubt about that, but for as adam smith has told them wealth of nations was published in 1776. you'll make more money by treating them as trading partners than treating. as vassal states. he's very explicit about it. and that's true as it turns out. we are the biggest trading partner after the war with britain and the first british empire is then succeeded by a of course. they've got to fight the french again. it's what they do. but it's succeeded by another british empire that's going to be bigger richer more expansive globally than the first british empire ever was so d colonization is the way of the world, but it's going to take world war ii to really put the nails in the coffin where those aspirational issues that we talked about come to the fore and you have the creation of modern india israel. kenya all the nations that have come into being as a consequence of decolonization. after world war ii it's good point though. it points up in a sense the continuing relevance of the american revolution to drive for liberation. people want to live free. well, that's that's right and the american declaration of independence is cited over and over in movements of liberation around the world and it continues to this day. gentleman to your left towards the front. good afternoon. you would mention the george washington had 300 slaves at his death. can you comment on the assertions made by the 1619 project that one of the primary reasons for us looking for independence was the preservation of slavery? yeah, now we're really into the can of worms there. we are having a good time up here rick. yeah. yeah, the 1619 project for those of you don't know was a project by the new york times with i think great intentions. it was to commemorate 400 years of slavery in america first slaves arriving in 1619 and to look at what that meant to us as a country and it was very ambitious very sweeping and in some cases i think quite wrong. now there's a book. i think it's out this week on the they've converted that newspaper project. into a what sounds like a very interesting collection of essays on the larger theme and from what i've read about the book. i'm not seen it yet, but they have revised some of their thinking about some things and they have expanded and they have really worked the topic. it sounds like the book is excellent. the assertion that the revolution was fought to propagate slavery is just wrong. it's just wrong. now we can say a lot of things about slavery and i will lead the band into announcing it as the original sin. but the revolution begins in new england and it's not that there's no slavery in new england rhode island in particular is very active in the slave trade and there are slaves in all of the new england colonies, but it is a very small part of the economy and the culture of the firebrands who start the revolution. samuel adams is not declaring war on the king in order to preserve slavery. that's just not what's working and you can go back and look at the original documents and it's pretty clear. slavery becomes very complicated in the revolution as it is through all of our history. you have the british offering for example in virginia to give slaves their freedom if they will come fight for the brits. it turns out it's a disaster for those slaves who do that because they are treated badly sickness sweeps through them smallpox again dysentery typhus. there are efforts by the american states to enlist black units rhode island has a black regiment. basically, it's more like a company than a full regiment. there are proposals that south carolina when in 1780 they're about to be overrun and are overrunner charleston that hey why don't you arm your slaves to fight the british or encircling charleston? south carolinians say i would rather die than do that. so this is very complicated. but the notion that the the animating principle behind the revolution is to keep slavery going first of all, who's the largest slave trading nation on earth great britain great britain, right? the slave trade has run out of liverpool. the slavery is still legal in britain at this point so and but they're farther along. no doubt about it. they're farther along than the american's are in recognizing that it's a moral abomination and that it's that it needs to go but it is not why we fight the revolution. to your left again towards the front. thanks very much. rick is a somebody who's born raised and lives in the boston area. i found the first half year book great second half not so much. that's pretty parochial. yeah. question and again, i don't know if you've studied this but ironically the greatest defeat by the us in the indian wars occurs not in not on grants watch but in washington's watch. when a group of 1,000 or so. a regular army or almost massacred in the battle of the wabash and 1791. do you have any thoughts or did you started all about a washington's role as a commander in chief? because it also when i read about it, it seemed like he didn't really it's kind of like akin to eisenhower's a de-emphasis on the military and any thoughts on that. well the wabash is past my time period there are significant indian issues during the revolution the indians incited by the british are conducting raids on the frontier, which at that time is western. what's now western new york and along the pennsylvania border and there are lots of massacres and the massacres go both ways and washington in 1779 organizes the biggest campaign that he is going to conduct in 1779 against the indians. and he sends general sullivan and another army under general clinton and they sweep through these indian. they destroy 40 indian towns. in an effort, it's punitive and it's an effort to push them back into canada to keep them away from the frontier. it's very ineffective because the indians basically like to be a kong of taking a page from they just fall back they fall back and fall back very few indians are killed or captured and when the armies leave that area the indians are again going to begin the resume the raids that they've conducted. i'm not. entirely sure. i understand your question, but washington has commander in chief certainly recognizes that the essence of leading an army of liberation is political. and very few things that he does don't have a political component to them and he thinks about politics and he recognizes the political consequences of what he's doing. he let's remember that washington is a virginian and when he shows up to take command of the continental army in in 1775 in july, he has almost nothing good to say about the the army he's taking over they're all new englanders for the most part. there are a few riflemen from virginia and pennsylvania, but they're basically new englanders. he writes in private correspondence about dirty new englanders. he has nothing good to say about the junior officers. he's got to recognize he's been out of uniform for 17 years incidentally from when he was a militia colonel. so there's a lot of things he doesn't know and there's some things he's forgotten and one of those things that i think he's got to to take on very quickly is the mystical bond between leader and lead. he's left mount vernon in the care of all those slaves back there and is overseers and his cousin who's running the farm for him and martha, of course is there. most of the soldiers who have come to fight at his side have left their farms and their shops. and it is it's a problem for them. it's a problem because you have no income. you've left your wife and kids at home. they have sacrificed immensely for the cause and this is going to go on in one form or another for eight years washington has got to acknowledge that sacrifice. he's got to embrace it. he's got to weld himself to them. in a way that they know in their bones that he understands who they are and what they're giving up. it's the essence of leadership and we're not just talking about military leadership. and he i think comes to that realization slowly and we see over the course of the first several years of the war this commitment not only to the cause but a commitment to washington because he has a reciprocal affection that develops for them. this is a critical component of his success as a military leader. no that patrician leading the sort of common man. i think a wellington, you know, i don't know if these men scare the enemy they certainly scare the hell out of me as wellington famously said about his own truth. yep. yep. we're gonna go to on your right gentleman. could you comment a little bit about the escape from the battle of long island and some have called that an american dunkirk? i would just be curious your thoughts. yeah. yeah. i think that's not a misplaced analogy. well, i mentioned that washington gets his -- kicked at long island. he doesn't realize that the brits led by general clinton who will become the commander in chief are outflanking him going around his left end. and the americans wake up. this is late august the 1776 the americans wake up and the enemy is behind them. this is never good. and there's a pretty good drubbing inflicted and the american forces who have been positioned on a ridgeline looking toward toward staten island are falling back in chaos and disbelief and some of them drown trying to get away washington is watching all this from some high ground and you know, he's shaking his head they fall back to brooklyn. brooklyn is a little village at the time and it's got entrenchments around it. so it's a pretty substantial fortified place to to take refuge as the british and the germans are coming ever closer. they're within several 100 yards and washington. realizes that he's in danger. he's pinned against the east river and he's in danger of being obliterated and in that case the war probably does end. and so he agrees. in a counsel with his senior commanders that we will we will leave tonight. and he orders every fishing smack and rowboat and sailing vessel that you can find to be brought to coves on the east river and the forces tiptoe down to the water side if you go to the brooklyn bridge today on the brooklyn side, you can see there's signage of where this happened. it's at the the base of the brooklyn bridge today and they slip away a very provident the wind first of all picks up and it is favorable to them and then there's a very providential fog that comes in the british don't know that they're leaving. and the next morning comes the british, you know, they don't hear much from behind those fortifications. they send scouts forward. they see the last of the boats washington's in one of those last boats crossing the east river. it's a miraculous escape. back to manhattan where they're they will live to fight. their day now they're going to be evicted from manhattan soon after that the british land. it keeps bay on september 15th. it just isn't going well in the campaign for new york, but he has preserved his army, which is the critical thing for him. he's got to have an army if he's going to fight a war, you know a friend of the museum who spoke in here a couple times patrick o'donnell has written a really good book on this this topic. yes, the indispensables. it's called it's takes you through it chapter and verse your your sections on in this book, too. it's it's a chase, you know, it's adjacent good guys get away, but just barely next question right in front, please. as usual your excellent appreciate you're continued visits to the museum and your book was excellent. is it possible to compare or contrast beyond the obvious 150-year difference the experience of the soldiers themselves and can you also comment on their progression from the beginning of the wars to the end as fighting soldiers draft attitudes? yeah, that's a that's a very good question. i'll try be succinct because dissertations can be written on this great subject. let's look at that american world war ii force for 16.1 million in uniform in world war ii in a country of 140 million. they are not always extremely well trained, but they are trained particularly as we begin pushing those divisions into europe and out into the pacific. they have had a fair amount of time often with a cohort take of combat veterans taking from other divisions. so there is a plan for making them. available for combat now the plan doesn't you know, the 106 division shows up in the ardenne. they're not only the newest greenest unit in the army there the youngest because they're the first division to be taking 18 year olds and they get destroyed. so the plan doesn't survive contact with the enemy on occasion, but for the most part, i think that that force american force and particularly army 8 million strong is pretty formidable. the and it gets stronger as you go along as part of what's happening is the sifting out of the capable from the incapable of the physically vigorous from those who cannot handle it physically or mentally cherishes in his generals look luck luck. never to be under underestimated in in life and never to be underestimated in war. so those junior officers senior officers ncos are all rising to the top so that they can lead that force that is going to fight the last year of the war it it's a ferocious ferocious army it's different in the revolution. first of all the notion of a farmer leaving his plow on the furrow and grabbing a musket to go off and defensive fre. mostly poppycock there is some of that but as the war goes on trying to fill the ranks is an endlessly agonizing problem for washington and the congress and everybody associated with the american war effort. to the point where i mentioned, you know, should we arm the slaves to the point where paying substitutes becomes as common as actually enlisting men in the army? and they're capabilities. there are a number of particularly of officers who've had experience in the french and indian war as washington has and that's very valuable. these guys have smelled gunpowder and they know something about campaigning. but for most of the rank and file, they don't know much about it. they've got they're familiar with with fire locks with muskets because everybody's got one but trying to teach them the rigors of of semi-professional army is that's going to take years and the fact that there's such turnover. uh is makes it very problematic. so the you know by the time you get yorktown in 1781. okay. it's a pretty good army, but we don't win yorktown if we don't have the french. we don't win the war if we don't have the french. so it requires some external bolstering. just to be successful. we're going to go a little long on this q&a session so we can get at least two more questions in. first i want to say this is really great the discussion. i really enjoyed it. i want to ask you rick something you touched on in vietnam during vietnam war. it was a lot of in this country obviously different attitudes and attacks on the war. hot in england. how was there much of that in england against sending the british, you know their soldiers over to to us to fight and i there's our any books about that. i've often thought about i wonder what they really felt in england and how you know how i could learn little more about it. yeah, i agree with rob. that's a really good question. it's very interesting issue. i i spend a lot of time on the other side of the hill. this first book were with the british army were with the we were with the king and the cabinet a lot and that issue is something that i i think is fascinating. there is a robust opposition in britain. and it has some of the greatest minds of british politics aligned with it including edmund burke including lord chatham in including charles james fox who's probably the greatest orator in parliament, and that's saying something when you compare him to burke and and chatham at his best they are against the war they're against the war in part because they're against the king they're against the the ministry as it exists. they don't like they're looking for power themselves. they don't like domestic politics and they are a robust noisy opposition. there are also relatively small. they're always in the minority in parliament. they move repeatedly to either reprimand certain generals or the progress of the whatever and they always fall short by a lot until we get very late in the war. there is in the you know in out in the countryside, how do people feel about it? well in britain, they are electing their parliament. so the parliament is largely reflecting british public opinion. there are doubts about it. you know, what are we doing when this is this has gone on for a long time. it's really expensive. the people are paying the most in taxes are increasingly agitated about it because taxes keep going up. they read the casualty lists. there are a lot of dead british soldiers and they are never coming home. they're going to find a grave in a foreign field. so there is anxiety about it, but the anxiety does not translate into a significant enough political opposition to change direction until really yorktown saratoga gives them pause. because the british army at saratoga having invaded down lake champlain in 1777. trapped and destroyed it's a big it's it's a very large shock in britain. and of course it's going to bring the french in and when it becomes a global war. that works in two ways first. they the brits rally round the king. and rally round the cause because now we're you know, it's not those pesky noisy dirty americans. it's the french. it's the french we can all get behind that and it's really quite something the french and the spanish send in armada in 1779, very similar to the armada 1588. they are off the coast the southern coast of england with plans to take portsmouth. the biggest most important british naval base and there's even talk of maybe marching on london. it goes wrong. this this fleet is stricken with bad luck and with disease but at this point the british people are fully on board this war. the american aspects of it are really kind of a footnote. and so that's one of the reasons why there's support continues into the 1780s. the question to your left halfway back needs to be a short question and sorry rick probably a short answer as well. well, this will try to be a short question, but the mercy the capture of the hessian mercenaries did that lead to like the reason why mercenaries started to become unpopular use in the military because you don't hear much about it later on. and is that why the british probably declared them drunk? instead of saying that they were just captured. well the british were looking for scapegoats because it's the british you put them there. and the disposition of those compounds including trenton. that was a british brainstorm. it was stupid. there were very exposed the use of mercenaries. some people don't like the term mercenary but the use of particularly a german auxiliary troops had been common throughout the 18th century. remember that george the third comes from hanoverian stock his his george at first and georgia second his great grandfather and his grandfather had been the king's proceeding him were born in germany. so tapping into that reservoir of manpower. it was a natural thing for them the british are never going to renounce the use of hessian mercenaries. they're going to be with us in this country in the war until the end. one of the things that happens the last thing i'll say about it and and end it there. is that when those hundreds go into captivity they are for the most part sent to what we know is pennsylvania dutch country dutch is a perversion of deutsch. they're germans who've emigrated to pennsylvania, and there are a lot of germans in pennsylvania and maryland some in new york and the prisoners are sent out there in part to work. the same way that prisoners and world war two german prisoners worked on farms in the midwest and so on and they're looking around and they're saying you know saying half bad. yeah mine gold. you just so a lot of them end up staying. and when you drive around carlisle or points east of there in pennsylvania, and you see all those german names you can bet your bottom fennig that a lot of them are hessians descendants of hessian prisoners who decided not to go back to germany. the number of times. we got germany into this discussion. just i'm really impressed rick i want thank thank you personally for that. patino before weekends on c-span 2 are an intellectual feast every saturday american history tv documents america's story and on sundays book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors funding for c-span 2 comes from these television companies and more including cox. cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the connect to compete program bridging the digital divide one connected and engaged student at a time cox bringing us closer cox along with these television companies support c-span, 2 as a public service. c-span has hundreds of programs on first ladies, including archival footage interviews and book talks. here's a look at one of our programs. i feel quite sure that what the american people lack is knowledge. i feel quite sure that. the american people if they have knowledge and leadership can meet any crises just as well as they've met it over and over again in the past. i can remember the cries of horror when my husband said we had to have 50,000 airplanes and a given period but we had them. and the the difference was that the people were told. what the reason was and why and i have complete faith. in the american people's ability if they know and if they have leadership. and no one can move without some leadership. and for the time being you feel that we are bereft of leadership. yes. take a closer. look at the spouses of our nation's presidents their private lives public roles and legacies watch all of our first ladies programs online at first ladies dot c-span.org. and today i am so excited to be welcoming judith mackrell. thank you so much for being with us. well, thank you for joining me. tell me. where are you right now? so i'm in london and in my study which is at the top of the house lovely big space where i do nearly all of my writing kind of your escape. that's your happy place. absolutely as long as the book's going. well right myself to my desk. yes, that totally makes sense. well, i am so thrilled to be talking to you today about the

Related Keywords

United States , United Kingdom , Tunis , S26 , Tunisia , Hudson River , New York , Delaware , Russia , Fort Washington , Pennsylvania , Wellington , New Zealand General , New Zealand , India , Netherlands , Italy , Cambridge , Cambridgeshire , Ireland , Trenton , Spain , Gibraltar , Georgia , Mount Vernon , Glasgow City , Algeria , Vietnam , Republic Of , Rhode Island , Princeton , Devon , Virginia , Togo , Canada , Washington , London , City Of , Jersey , Germany , Kenya , New Jersey , Chatham , Medway , Maryland , Saratoga , France , Americans , America , Germans , Britain , Virginian , Spanish , French , Soviet , Dutch , Italians , German , British , Georgian , Russians , American , Adam Smith , George Marshall , Bea Kong , Charles James , Benjamin Franklin , Tom Brokaw , Henry Knox , George Washington , Rick Atkinson , Martha Dandridge Custis , Samuel Adams , Jefferson Madison Monroe , Windsor Castle , George Patton , Brooklyn ,