Transcripts For CSPAN3 France And Spain During The American Revolution 20170513

War, Benjamin Franklin and other american envoys lobbied in france and spain. The papers of the Continental Congress contained the longrunning correspondence between congress and its envoys of envoys abroad. The american diplomats efforts were rewarded in the treaty of alliance and the treaty with france, and the entry of spain into the war in 1799. Arms and supplies from the spanish governor of louisiana aided the american cause. And at the end of the war, the french army and navy made the yorktown victory possible. The stories of our nations early days cannot be told without reference to the records here at the National Archives diplomatic correspondence, treaties, military commissions, and more documents on the International Side of the American Revolution. The two office we had here with us tonight will enlighten us about the roles france and spain played in our countrys formative years. So lets now hear from the panel. To leave the discussions on it, we are happy to have Rosemarie Zagarri, professor of history at george mason university. Backl of revolutionary ash. Larrie ferreiro. He teaches history and engineering at george mason university. ,nd france off furstenberg author of when the united oftes spoke france, author history at Johns Hopkins university. His parents, are the furstenbergs here . If you have ever shopped on connecticut at furst, it is furstenberg. Please welcome Rosemarie Zagarri, larrie ferreiro, and rinse off furstenberg. [applause] prof. Zagarri good evening. I am Rosemarie Zagarri from george mason university. We are thrilled see you all here tonight. For this wonderful program. The first item is to let you know it will not be in french. [laughter] maybe youre disappointed but maybe you are pleased. In any case, what we would like to do first is have each of for athors speak to you few minutes about their books and give you a general sense about what they talk about in their books. We will be talking among ourselves, and try and give you a good understanding of some of the issues that they discuss. These are issues that you may not have thought about, because when we think about early america, the postrevolutionary period, we tend to think primarily about england and the new United States. This discussion will introduce you to a whole other dimension of the conflict involving france and spain. So lets start with professor ferreiro to talk about his book, brothers at arms. Prof. Ferreiro thank you. In early 1776, britain was engaged in war, and we were fighting for independence but without gunfire, artillery, or a navy. It was only france and spain who were the historical enemies of britain who had both military to defeatval strength the british, which is why we needed their alliance. But they would not ally with us if they saw it simply as a civil war. They had to be convinced we were fighting as a sovereign nation, a separate nation. You can see john adams quote, up there, which i have to turn and read. The foreign powers would not engage with us until we had acknowledged ourselves as an independent nation, and adams was not known as a fan of foreign entanglements. Thomas jefferson also said that the declaration of independence alone would allow European Countries to treat with us. This is important. The declaration was not commissioned by congress as a message to george iii. He had already gotten the memo. He knew the americans were fighting for independence, and the americans knew this. They also were not sending the declaration for the American People, because they american the American People had sent their delegates to philadelphia to vote for independence. In fact, the document that is upstairs in the rotunda was written specifically as a call to arms, an engraved invitation asking france and spain to come and fight alongside us. Now, when we started the war, we were bereft of gun power, guns, artillery i mentioned that and it was france and spain who first began to furnish all of these arms. Even before the declaration of independence had been signed, a french merchant named beaumarcher, and silas deane, the envoy in paris, were negotiating for the sale of arms to the United States. In late 1776, early 1777, a large shipment of arms under beaumarchais, carried 20,000 guns and other accoutrements that arrived just in time to supply the americans who were about to face, who bourgoin at saratoga. You can see this quote by caleb stark who was there and you what would happen that unless arms had been timely furnished to the americans, he said, they would bourgoin would have made an easy march to albany. So it was french arms which turned the tide of the battle and gave the americans their first taste of victory, major victory at saratoga. In the meantime, there were volunteers from france and other parts of europe who came to the United States. They came to fight the british, because that was where the enemy was. But along the way, they came to make the american cause their own. And washington came to depend upon these immigrants who got the job done. As the musical hamilton so aptly portrays. My right, Louis Duportail became washingtons righthand man. He was able to help washington deploy the strategic intent of the continental army, that thought is a professional professional army under the not so gentle gaze and the lash of baron von steuben who created a program at valley forge, and took a somewhat ragtag group of militia and formed an army that could actually go toetotoe against the british. And of course, lafayette, the best known of the group, ended up with an independent command in the southern theater. And in those engagements, he kept cornwallis from coming north. And he also followed cornwallis all the way to yorktown. Now back in europe, there were two individuals who were the most important characters in this whole story. To my right was the French Foreign minister, the comte de vergennes. And of all the characters, he was the one who made most of the decisions that concerned the alliances both between france and the United States and between france and spain. France and spain were allied. They had been allied through family ties. Was called the bourbon family compact. Both kings were descended from louis the 14th. Even though they were allied, they had much different goals. The goal of france, under vergennes, was to significantly weaken britain so it could regain the balance of power it had lost during the sevenyear war. In that alliance was also spain. Spain had also come out rather badly during the seven years war, and they lost a lot of territory, including florida. So spains primary goal was to regain territory. The frenchamerican alliance of 1778 brought france into the war for the first time. And what that did was bring, most importantly, the french navy into american waters. Any war at this time with britain was always going to be in naval war. Remember britannia ruled the waves. ,o it prevented britain suddenly, from having the kind of dominance it used to to be able to resupply and move troops around. That knocked them back on their heels, but it would not have been enough until the Spanish Foreign minister, the conde de floridablanca, on my left, who , as i mentioned, established the spanish goals of recovering territory like gibraltar and florida, to come into the war. The entry of spain and to the war in 1779 fundamentally changed the nature of the war from a regional clash in north america to a global conflict. And the combined spanish and french navies outnumbered the british, and they were overwhelmed. They had to defend not only their troops and territories in north america, but their colonies in the caribbean. They had to defend land such as gibraltar and mallorca, even as far away as india. Meanwhile, back in louisiana, the governor of spanish louisiana was supplying the american troops with gunpowder and guns and supplies, but as soon as war was declared in 1779, he lost a series of raids that brought down the britain posts that included baton rouge. But the goal was always pensacola, which included the capital of british west florida and was the key to gulf of mexico, which spain wanted to recapture. And after a few setbacks by a series of devastating hurricanes, in 1781, he launched a joint spanishfrench attack that took pensacola and got the british out of the gulf of mexico, which happened at just the right time. Because right about then, the french commander came to the caribbean and asked the spanish to please guard the french colonies in the caribbean. Remembered, that is where the money was. Sugar plantations in the caribbean. Please guard those colonies from the british while i take my entire fleet north to the chesapeake. The comte de grasse was a fighting admiral who was loved by his sailors. 64aid of him, he stands and 65 in days of battle. Was learned washington heading to the chesapeake, and they raced south from new york to meet him, and surrounded cornwallis in yorktown. When they got there and washington came aboard degras flagship, degras, who stood two inches tall are than washington, he explained the real story. Before you ask, yes, he was one of the ancestors of the rockstar astrophysicists Neil Degrasse tyson. Degrasse was landing his fleet around the chesapeake when the british fleet under Thomas Graves appeared. Degrasse sortied his entire graves, orated either drove him off, and once that happens the British Forces , at yorktown could neither be resupplied nor evacuated. That sealed their fate. The story of yorktown is pretty well known. Washington and rochambeau led the troops on a quick march, surrounded yorktown, laid siege for five days. And that siege was directed by french officers, who also directed the trenches and the gunfire. The french also lost twice as many men as the americans. So when charles ohara, who was cornwallis second in command came out to surrender, he saw it as a french victory, and offered to surrender to rochambeau. Rochambeau, of course knew the , moment belonged to washington. He directed ohara to washington. Washington would not take surrender from somebody elses second in command, so he directed him to benjamin lincoln, his second in command, and the battle was over. So the battle was over, but the war was not. I just said the war was a world war. By the time yorktown was fought, britain was fighting five separate nationstates, and they were overwhelmed. The United States, france, britain. They dragged the dutch republic into it, and the kingdom of mysore in india were all fighting britain. In summary, during this battle during this war, 200,000 french and spanish soldiers and sailors fought, as compared with about 250,000 to 380,000 americans. They were as invested in this war as we were. So i want you to know that america could never have won the war without france, and france would never have fought the war without spain. And what i hope all of you take away is this that america did not achieve independence by itself. Instead, it was borne at a centerpiece of an International Coalition which, together, worked to defeat a common adversary. That is pretty much who we are today. We are the centerpiece of International Coalitions striving towards a common goal, and that is why we remain, today the indispensable nation. , thank you. Prof. Zagarri thank you. [applause] now, we will have professor talk aboutrstenberg his book, when the United States spoke french. Prof. Furstenberg let me begin by thanking Rosemarie Zagarri for moderating this panel discussion. It is terrific. It is an honor to be here. Larrie, and thanks to you for hosting. It is really an ideal pairing, these two books, because if i had written it a little bit later, i would have understood it as a sequel to larries. [laughter] prof. Ferreiro i am so glad you wrote yours first. Prof. Furstenberg leaned heavily on it. Would have sold more. As we learned, the American Revolution was really a french victory. Something like that. At least, i think it is fair to say it was a french war, a french and spanish war, as much as it was an american war. Maybe one of the things we can talk about i have been thinking about this but we really need a new name for this war, dont we . So in a sense, everything i will talk about follows from what larrie was talking about, because just as the seven years war led into the American Revolution, so did the American Revolution lead, a decade later, into another war, the french revolution and the napoleonic wars, which lasted nearly a quarter century. There are lots of factors and causes of the french revolution. I think probably a few things have been as studied as that one. I think it is fair to say that debt left over from french involvement in the American Revolution because everything you are talking about was enormously expensive. People keep forgetting that wars are very expensive. And this left a crushing debt on the french government. And it was that debt that really was the catalyst for the french revolution. When the french revolution broke out, americans were thrilled. They could hardly have been more excited about these events. This was the most powerful monarchy in europe that had suddenly, out of nowhere, fallen to its knees. It was like a dream for people, it seemed surreal. It is hard to capture the excitement and shock. You have to think of may of 1968, maybe, the fall of the berlin wall, arab spring, donald trump, all of these astonishing, sort of unbelievable events, all of them wrapped up into this one spectacular moment. Best of all, americans thought they started this all. In 1792, france became a republic, and the excitement in the United States became a frenzy. Everywhere, there were marches. Then in 1793, king louis the 16th was executed, and aristocrats were massacred in the streets of paris. Thousands of people fled, including many of them to the United States. So the book that i wrote was about five of these refugees who came to the United States on their american adventure. I thought using their stories would be a way of looking at Early American History from a different perspective, from slightly different eyes. I had originally envisioned this this is the story of many books, i am sure as a small, little project, something i could get over in a couple years, but it quickly ballooned into something much bigger. It took me way beyond paris and philadelphia through london, the caribbean, and deep into the american continental interior. And it grew beyond the five aristocrats who are started the book with to include anchors in amsterdam, bankers in amsterdam slaves in haiti, native americans in the ohio valley, and all of them were involved with the story that i was trying to tell about these five figures. So i do not have a whole lot of time tonight to tell you all about the book. I will introduce you briefly to the five characters and structure the account, and tell you three to four important lessons i drew from the research and writing i did, and we can elaborate on that as we talk at through talked it through. The first characters i studied was the former french archbishop who proposed the nationalization of church land. He would go on to be frances lard in this longest serving french minister. He spent a couple of years here along with all these others. There was also louismarie vicomte de noailles, lafayettes brotherinlaw, who fought in the American Revolution. He was the person who actually negotiated the french terms at the surrender, cornwallis surrender. In the 1780s, after he returned to france, he became a figure in reform circles, and it was he who presided on august 4, 1789 when feudalism was formally abolished. The third character was one of the wealthiest aristocrats of old regime france. As the master of the kings liancourt whowas burst into his bed chambers to tell him of the uprising in paris. Is it a revolt, the king asked . There was a traveler and a famous writer and future senator. The last character was moreau de saintmery, a lawyer and historian who had been born in the caribbean, married into a wealthy planter family and had gone to paris to write about french politics. These men were all aristocrats , but they were liberal aristocrats. They saw themselves following in the footsteps of the American Revolution. They admire the United States and the constitution that have been recently crafted. And they hoped to implement a Constitutional Monarchy in france that would look substantially similar to the u. S. Revolution. When the french revolution began, they became its leaders. I think it is fair to say that had history taken a different path, they would today be considered the french republics founding fathers. We would be singing songs about them, maybe. But that was not the path history took. They were forced to flee, and they came to the United States and settled in philadelphia. As i say, i do not have time to talk about the whole book, we have copies on sale outside, but i will make a few points here and talk about what sort of surprised me as i did the research. It was reinforced as i did the writing and research on this book. The first really built on what larrie was talking about. The kind of marginality, if you want to think about it that way, of the United States. Came at a time when the United States was nothing like the power it is today. I think it takes a leap of imagination to understand the country, as it was then, a weak, fragile collection of 13 states, really puny power, riddled with division, continually under siege by native and foreign powers. Today, the United States is a globalntal and even power, but back then, its sovereignty extended from the Appalachian Mountains to the south atlantic he. The heart was in the caribbean, that was europes main interest. The islands that produced rich stores of sugar, coffee, indigo, all of the products that were powering the economy. In fact, it was to protect these islands, these french investments, that france had intervened in the American Revolution. That may have been the main reason. American harbors in port were expected to provide naval bases for french Naval Operations in the serbian. American resources like lumber and we would supply that sugar colonies, just as they had been supplying the British Sugar colonies. So it was these geostrategic interests that motivatednc entry. These were the benefits french authorities expected to reap after the american resolution revolution. It did not work out as they hoped or reasons we can talk about. The french revolution also quickly spilled over into the caribbean. Shortly after resolution exploded in france, insurrection broke out in todays haiti. Slaves in the northern part of the colony broke out into rebellion that turned into revolution against slavery itself. Under the leadership of toussaint louverture, the haitians alone defeated the french, spanish, and the british are the haitian revolution what up and the atlantic economy at the labor regime on which it depended and bring tens of thousands of refugees pouring into the United States. This is another lesson driven home powerfully, the importance of the haitian revolution for American History in this period. It is impossible to tell the story of how the United States was transformed from this weak, continental power into a global power without incorporating the history of the caribbean. The last thing i learned that i will talk about is to think about philadelphia in completely different ways than i had before. Philadelphia was the capital of the United States. I is where the refugees that was talking about settled. But it was a different city then what it is today with a population of about 40,000 people, which is roughly the size of a large american university. Itself, geographically, was tiny. Virtually all of the population was along the banks of the delaware river. It was an incredibly dense city. Much denser then even manhattan today. To see that kind of population density, you have to look to bombay today. Thousands of french people poured into this mix, mostly coming from the caribbean. It is hard to assess the exact numbers. I was never able to figure out exactly how many can get between 3000 and 8000 french people came into philadelphia in this period. Ofewhere between 8 to 20 the city, which all of a sudden was frenchspeaking. This is a very faithbased city. 40,000 People Living in the area of a university. A significant event. These waves of refugees pouring into the city really altered its social and cultural and lightness enlightenment period. Grand houses in the french style and filled them with ornate french tapestries, exquisite go back porcelain gobain porecelain. Porcelain. French revolutionary songs broke out nightly and echoed in the streets. Saintmery opened up a shop. French dentist, french dance instructors, all of them were supplying their services. The french language raining out on philadelphia streets. All of these shaped the citys cosmopolitan sphere. Settledve figures all in this one little philadelphia neighborhood. They lived to get there, ate together, socialized together. They had intimate connections with each other. Every day he was in philadelphia each of us knew the others most intimate thoughts. Te almost every day at a french anchors house that employed a french chef. The onlyd states was country where, with 32 religions, there was only one dish. And it was a bad one, he said. [laughter] so over the course of research, i realized in the 1780s and 7090s was a largely forgotten moment when the United States the aspect of this period was a period when the United States was most turned towards the world in general and france in particular. These merchants who started the elite social life in philadelphia. All of them rich from trade. It was into the circles that my guys socialized. The encounter that took me through philadelphias elite salons and parlors, it brought me into contact with the continental interior, where they were investing heavily in backcountry lands, a story that i never thought to follow up on, and eventually brought me into these important jewelers will geopolitical relations with the United States and eventually, the Louisiana Purchase. Or the louisiana sale, depending on your perspective it which was all tied up with events taking place in the caribbean. Of 1793 set 1803 extraordinaryit transformation. Where the United States toetched from the atlantic the Rocky Mountains and the country was on the way to becoming a great power. Story, theseries transformations cannot be understood without reference to the taking place in europe and the caribbean. And the point of both of these books is to the extent in which American History is really so intimately tied up with these histories of other parts of the world. Prof. Zagarri thank you. [applause] let me start with a question for both of you. I am sure the audience is curious about knowing how each of you turned toward or found your project, how your own background or interest led you to this slightly off path. Prof. Furstenberg for me my mother is french. My name is francois. I always had a comparative advantage in being able to read a foreign language. Something few american historians, i am sorry to say, are able to do. I was not interested in doing french history or even french reflective history of the United States. My first book was on George Washingtons image. As american as you can get. What changed was it was, in a sense, less about international trajectories and more about personal trajectories. At the university of montreal, a francophone institution, is where i got my degree job. I was teaching u. S. History to french students come up francophone students. I worked in a department where there were only two of us out of 25 or 28 people working on u. S. History. Anmany ways, this was interesting place for me to be. I do not think i would have done this book if i had been teaching somewhere else. But i wanted to try to make connections with my colleagues and my students. I was trying to figure out something that would connect the period of American History i was interested in with france or the atlantic world. When manyo a time historians, prominent historians, were expanding their focus. Move to internationalize American History. So the path was then open for me, by a lot of scholarship. But it meant i was able to work in this field to make what might have been a marginal account something that would draw the attention of other historians. It sent into the problems we were talking about at the time. It is really a combination of the intellectual and global contexts. And the fact that i wanted to do something sort of french. Prof. Ferreiro i came from a much different direction. I am a naval architect by profession. My wife is from peru which, though i have a spanish last name, did not. As part of my job, i went to france and worked in their navy, their ship design division. Did a lot of research on the side. Old myway, i was so french colleagues, is i learned french for business but learned spanish for love. [laughter] my wife still likes that. [laughter] and our i was there, firstborn son, who was born marcel, i began studying the roots of my profession and decided to get my doctorate in the history of technology and looked at the rise of shipbuilding in the age of sails. They are i discovered france and spain had worked together right after the seven years war had ended, almost before the ink was right on the treaty of paris to rebuild their navy and create a combined navy that was going to defeat britain. And they did that by sharing shipbuilders and engineers. This all became part of my doctoral work. As mynew going into this, children were growing up, that of a combined their forces, and it was a combined navy that was the key to the defeat of written britain. But when my children were in school and i saw france was barely mentioned in the story of the revolution and the spanish not at all, i began to wonder why there was a gap in what i knew and what i saw. The idea to my agent, and she said i think there is a story there. I said i think so. So i spent the next year schlepping my kids to battlefields and ann kammans. And in addition to the work i had already been doing in the archives, found a much wider story then america had started in 1776. You all know the battles. It was a world war. Again, just to be very clear, any kind of war that anybody was tightening fighting britain at the time was always going to be a naval war. So i got into the story in large part because of my naval when youd, but also do anything involving engineering, you are always looking at what the larger context is. Why were they building . Why were they building up this fleet . Which is a Huge Investment in manpower, in supplies. And there was a political intent to defeat britain. Always, forwas france and spain, america was always going to be part of that equation. They always knew america was going to be going up against britain at some point. They certainly were prepared to exploit the American Revolution that they knew was going to happen. Long before we did as part of that goal. Fleet that wasa to create what amounted to a Large Coalition that would eventually defeat a common enemy, each one for their own reasons. That is no bad thing. Youdo not go to war because are being optimistic. Altruistic. What i saw were three nations with each having individual goals, but those goals had a common purpose. That is why they allied. When wewhat we do today ally with other nations. We do so for our own interest area i saw a lot of parallels between then and today. That is really what got me into this. Prof. Zagarri i think what is so interesting about this kind of approach to the late 18th oftury is it wrenches us out our traditional United Statescentered narrative, and we see how interconnected america was with the rest of the world. Is easy for a lot of nonhistorians to think globalization is a 20th or 21st century invention, or we did not have world war ii until the 20th century. What both of your works as is really help us see that these ,inds of connections of people of alliances, of geopolitics, existed for centuries, if not millennia. One thing i noticed neither one of you addressed your remarks obviously had to be brief but there was a lot of suspicion towards france and towards french people in america, because, after all, before the American Revolution, the people in north america were largely angloamerican. They considered themselves british. And france was the traditional enemy of britain. And there was a strong anticatholic element. So for each of your periods, i would like you to talk about attitudes towards france or the french that americans encountered. Orpicion, hostilities, welcoming with open arms. And how you think it changed American Attitudes towards france . Should we do a carbinol logically chronologically . Sure. You mention all of the points i found. The sentiment towards the french, in part because they have been the enemy in what we call the frenchamerican french indian war was only a decade old. The memories were strong. And religion and all of the other aspects meant that when the first french troops and volunteers were coming, they were not well regarded. Saidnael greene actually there were so many spies in our camp, that is how he referred to them. ,ut when the first battles especially brandywine, erupted, things changed. The congress, washington, other offices really did not know what to do with these people. They were coming in, some of ofm quite brusque in terms where they wanted to be placed. They were experienced soldiers. No political way to insert them into the American Military system, which was as much political, because generals were chosen based on state more thereey were based on were not that many battles they fought prior to this, so it was hard to see who was better in battle. That really made things quite difficult for the congress. But when d battle of Brandywine Brandywine were fought, and they had to throw them into the mix, these french volunteers did quite well. I point out that one of them you may not know his name, de flouris, was an engineer. Todays army corps of engineers now has a metal medal, the flouris medal, for courage and boldness. It was that slow first acceptance that eased french volunteers to be equal in terms of how they could fight. Eventually, they showed that they were able to contribute and contribute a lot. They became the immigrants who got the job done. Washington relied on them, congress accepted them. By the end of the war, there was a real it was really Coalition Warfare in the sense that we got today. Lot i spend a lot of room in my book talking about the relationship later in the war between your shantou and washington rochambeau and washington. Because those two really saw each other as equals. Came overh rochambeau after the alliance, he was always serving under washington. Their relationship was one of equals. They were soldiers. Respected each other. Even after the war, washington came to rely on rochambeaus advice. At the end, there is a wonderful line where he says we have lived together as brothers, which is one of the reasons why my book is so titled. You have ever been in uniform, no matter who you are serving with, the bonds between people who are fighting in a common cause far outweigh any differences nationalities might have caused. In my period that i covered, it was more that the band of brothers idea that brought the two together. Then, of course, things changed. Prof. Furstenberg yes. It is a funny paradoxical relationship. Br a long time, it was a ritishfrench relationship here they had really been at war for a century. British colonists fighting french settlers. And anticatholicism was a big identity. Itish then all of a sudden, everyone is profrench. But underneath this transformation, there was continuity. There was an undercurrent of antifrench sentiment that continues. Maybe it goes underground. It is not too hard to unleash it. Explains in large suddenhe equally transformation, the same kind of transformation in reverse, that happened in 1790. When the french revolution breaks out, everyone is profrench. Now the last real problem with is an is not that it ally, it is the most powerful monarchy in the world is gone. Now these are two republics. But within five years, by the 1790790s, midtolate quasiwarre in a with each other. I think that has to do with the continuity of antifrench sentiments. It can be partly based on culture, partly based on religion. But there was a there is a tendency to view the antisedition act, the laws that emerged in the late 1790s which people still refer to it today as antiimmigrant and, in particular, antifrench paranoia, but there were some reasons to be worried about the french presence and ambition in north america by the late 19 late 1790s. Part of it had to do with the way French Settlement had developed in previous centuries. The french had were never a settler colony, with the small exception of the st. Lawrence valley. These french had been a system of alliances between native americans and french settlers, french traders, and French Military officers. Even long after france left the continent, these native americans continued to dominate western regions militarily. Many of his old french alliances existed. There was a scene in one of wrote a de liancourt book of one of his travels. There was a scene when he traveled out west, and he hears someone speaking french, so he tries to find out who it is. It is a native american, and they have this conversation. The indians said to him the americans, they are our brothers, but the french, they were our fathers. There is a sense that there is this strong bond. And french authorities are counting on this when they are looking to the west in the 1790s. They are counting on these old alliances to be remobilized. Americans were quite worried about this. It is not just a cultural thing. Strategically, there was a turn towards the antifrench sentiments. But it is kind of like a love hatefear relationship. When i started this book, it was the era of Freedom Fries and pouring out french wine into the gutter. That continues. Prof. Ferreiro one thing, though, the link between the militaries remained reasonably strong during this period. That during this period the new nation had decided that it needed to have a professional army even in peacetime. It was under Thomas Jefferson, a little later, that the idea of the military academy, which had first been proposed by one of the characters i pointed out , du portais, and the first officers were french. They continue to contain that connection. Much of the textbooks, training, and shush and continued to come over from there. On the other side, we began to create a system of manufacture. I mentioned we had no real ability of making arms. That changed when many of the french engineers stayed. And they began to create factories. Many more came during the period you are referring to. Many of you know about dupont. The family of dupont was one of the gunpowder manufacturers. And as they were able to impart their knowledge, the americans did with the americans do best. We take what other people have and we change it and we create our own system out of it. So the american system of manufacture, which came a week call today mass production began with what many of the french engineers and processes had, over come over, starting in the military and then elsewhere. So despite the sentiments of perhaps larger parts of the population, there were always strands of connection that remained strong throughout. Prof. Zagarri and there was the founding of the society of the cincinnatis, which was an organization of american and French Military officers who had served in the American Revolution. This was a very civil and controversial sign of this continuing relationship. The Organization Still exists. Right here in washington. It is still a hereditary organization, where membership goes to the firstborn son in france or in the United States. That was one of the continuing bonds as well. One of the other things you mentioned, larrie, is france and spain entered the war for their particular purposes not because they were enamored of republican government, not because they were actually that sympathetic to the idea of the United States becoming an independent nation, but because they had their own should teach it goals strategic goals with relation to britain. I think that continues, that sort of geopolitics, continues into your period. Do you want to talk about, francois, the story of how the United States got the Louisiana Purchase . I do not ring it is widely known out of historian circles. It is fascinating. As i furstenberg after, said when the french intervened in the American Revolution, they had the idea that this would help them. There was always this expectation that france would ye in war with britain before long. There was a sense that in the next war, having the United States as an ally france would help operations in the caribbeans. They have been thrashed in the seven years war in terms of Naval Operations. There was a sense that these north american colonies in british position make our precarious, the whole tenuous. The french thing by detaching the north american colonies, not the would they weaken British Empire but strengthen their own hold on the caribbean. Anduse of the diplomatic military falling out that worked in the 1790s, it did not happen that way. With the outbreak of war and britain, washington and jefferson declared neutrality. This was really a betrayal of the treaty that entered france into the United States revolution American Revolution. I do not think they expected americans to send battalions over to europe, but to provision french ships, to help man and repair french ships, to use these harbors, beautiful harbors whicht british warfare, the United States systematically refused to do. Many historians will say this was a very wise decision by George Washington, but it was not with the french what the french had gone into the revolution expecting. Decide by theto late 1790s, it would be important to have french colonies of their own in order to maintain their hold on the caribbean. This was the main reason napoleon became interested in acquiring louisiana, which was the entire mississippi valley, everything it would serve all these purposes that they are expecting from the United States. It would provide bases for naval support. It would provide supplies for the caribbean colonies. That was why napoleon wanted it. He sent a huge army over to take louisiana. The problem was, the caribbean from his perspective was that the caribbean colonies were in outright revolution. Slavery was undermined dramatically by the haitian revolution. In order to reenergize the sugar economy he sought to put the free slaves back into slavery. He sent the army of tens of thousands of french troops. The expectation was, they were pushed down the haitian revolution, but former slaves back into slavery. From there they would fail out new orleans and take hold of louisiana. Its hard to imagine how the americans the massive would have thought the massive french arlie from new orleans. It didnt work out that way. It was the success of the former slaves in defeating the french forces. More french soldiers died then than in waterloo. It was a brutal war. The french army was defeated. Once it was defeated, there was no way they could go to new orleans. There wasnt much purpose anyway. They lost the most important caribbean colony. It was the success of the haitian revolution that led to the Louisiana Purchase. It was at that point that the bowling decided to sell this largely worthless piece of land to the americans from his perspective. [laughter] this is one of the great ironies. It was the success of haitian slaves, freeing themselves, fighting off the french, maintaining their freedom, that led to a massive expansion of american slavery across the deep south, alabama, mississippi, the mississippi valley. Civil warage for the a few generations later. Great. So we can keep chattering among ourselves, but we like to open it up to questions from the audience. You can go to the microphones, there or there. Dont be shy. Thank you very much. This is fascinating so far. I have a question about the willingness of the United States you said certainly we were interested in having france and spain as allies. We needed their gunpowder, assistance. So we were thinking about it in terms of cost and benefit. To what extent was the United States willing to make additional concessions to these foreign powers . One of you mentioned previously that spain was trying to recapture some territory in florida. Certainly the french had additional interest in the United States as well. Was there any discussion among the nascent american in the politics of the United States, what we were willing to concede to these foreign powers . Thank you. The alliance between was always between the United States and france. Spain did not formally align with the americans, so there really were no treaty negotiations to speak of, certainly no concessions. Concessions came afterwards when they were debating about where the line of control on the mississippi was. But during the war, the treaty of alliance and military treaty in 1778 primarily it was the treaty of amity and commerce which said we will be nice to each other and trade. Its based on john adams model treaty that was very specifically economic in nature. That is what franklin had gone over with originally. The military treaty said very little that i can remember in 1778 about any concessions about land. There was nothing in there about we will pay for this or that. This was not a transaction, this was a treaty. Theres a difference. Treaties are i have your back, youve got my back. So in this case, it was america agreed that it would not end the fighting unilaterally, nor would it make a separate peace with britain. As far as france was concerned, it would not stop fighting until britain agreed to the sovereignty of the United States. Those were the terms of the treaty. When spain to its alliance with france in 1789 it also stipulated that spain would not stop fighting until britain agreed to the sovereignty of the United States. Again, no direct alliance, but spain and france together said britain is other either we will be defeated or britain is going to recognize america as an independent nation. Does that answer your question . Did you mention that the biggest battle of the American Revolution didnt occur on american soil . I was surprised to see the siege of gibraltar, which started the day after the treaty was signed and didnt end until the treaties were signed, probably pulled in more soldiers and sailors from both sides. The numbers i saw were Something Like 60,000 spanish troops were arrayed around let me set the stage, maybe not all of you knew that gibraltar had been british territory, even though it was physically attached to spain, since 1704. I may have the date a little bit wrong. It had always been a thorn in spains side. For britain, this was a strategic point. It of course guards the entrance to the atlantic and mediterranean. Remember, britain is a naval power. Britains army was ok, but britains navy was second to none. Gibraltar was always a naval stronghold which is why they fought so hard to keep it great and that siege raged for four years. There was a battle that took in 1782, september, that was so fierce, there were Something Like one shell fired every three seconds. By the end of it, there were explosions with mushroom clouds the same as you would see over japanese cities 200 something years later. Mushroom clouds rising over the harbor. This was just a fiercely fought battle. Britain never gave in. They came away at the end still in possession. This is why one of the things, and you said this rosemary, very well we have had an american centric view of the war. Many of the battles took place well outside the view or knowledge of the americans. Britain really wasnt beaten so much as they were overwhelmed. Yes . As i understand it, these five were refugees after the french revolution took a leftward turn. What was their position in 1793, when the jeffersonians and their allies were urging that the u. S. Give aid to france during the war on the continents . Did they lie low, with a part of the game . Were they part of the game . Great question. The short answer, they were lying low. They had represented this kind of Political Center in france, a political liberalism which collapsed as the french revolution became more radical, as the jacobins took power, so they were forced to flee. They never gave up their sense of frenchness. They never came to the United States thinking they were going to stay. For the most part, they always understood themselves as in temporary exile. In the early years that they were here in 1794 and 1795, they dont seem to have any kind of political ambitions so far as i can understand. Hanging out with hamilton he was giving him suggestions about military operations, movements, things like that, for training. Not for war purposes. They would go and socialize they had known washington earlier. Bit of correspondence with him. Washington decided, to answer your question, this is one he came over as ambassador. He didnt want these guys to have anything to do with washington. He feared the french minister the person who preceded him, he feared that these guys were trying to sway the americans towards an alliance with britain. That was unfounded. That is what they worried about. Eventually washington conceded to these demands. He said they cannot come to my levees anymore. They stopped coming. The Social Circle is mostly federalist circles. May was good friends with jefferson, he spent a few days, maybe weeks at monticello had a long correspondence with jefferson later repudiated. Political alliances or sympathies would have been with the federalist, but they never got involved in federal politics. That changed by 1796. As the falling out began between france and the United States, they became more there was no smoking gun or anything, but i but i think was passing information. Not sensitive military or political information. The french ambassador who was expelled long ago they were understood to be in alliance with france at that point. There were fears that people were traveling in the west, was not clear what he was doing. There were other people, french officers who were traveling along the ohio valley looking at american forts, military encampments. They were clearly trying to recapture this area. Eventually, the ones who were still here in 1798, when the alien and sedition acts were passed were actually targeted for expulsion. Many left the country because they were kicked out or were about to be kicked out. Their politics may have stayed the same. Everything was swirling around them. French politics was changing so dramatically, diplomatic relationships were changing. I view them as having not changed very much in their own view. Everything else changed around them. The whole world moved around them in a sense. The situations are quite different. Can i ask a question . Yeah. Always had trouble explaining the quasiwar with france. Of you draw a Straight Line explaining what the events were and what caused it to dissipate . The francoamerican alliance by this time had been was in tatters. I am now talking in 1797. There are really powerful antifrench sentiments emerging. There are american ships being captured by french shipping in the caribbean. So theres a sense the federalists who have always been antifrench revolution since 1791, they are mobilizing for war. They view antifrench Political Sentiment as their means to get back into power or to hold on to power, anyway. So john adams sends a diplomatic contingent to paris to try to negotiate some kind of peace. Adams did not want war with france. There were arched federalists, including hamilton, mobilizing for war against france, and they were right to read this was their path to power. Its not the first or last time that people would view more as was as their path to political power. Adams, who i think in my editorial comments, deserves great credit he did not want a war. He did not think the United States was ready to handle war with france. He was probably right. He sent this mission to france to try to negotiate peace. That was with the foreign minister, who handled it very badly. He demanded bribes rather than negotiate peace. He misread the political situation, in part from his experiences. He radically misread this. He demanded bribes. Two of the american negotiators left one tried to keep things together. There were these demands for war and despite john adams, he had to accede. Hamilton became general. Washington was named general. Theres this weird moment. It was a quasiwar. This is an interesting moment, military history. I think it may be the first time there is an undeclared war, a lowgrade war. Basically its about military battles on c. Sea. Its an undeclared war. It has parallels to the cold war the ways in which wars conducted , ultimately, adams basic he restrains things. They negotiated peace. The cover never completely blows off, but theres Navy Operations in the caribbean with ships being captured. The last thing i will say, the line between formal war and not is unclear. A lot of operations have to do you know this better than i do privateering. These are private commercial shipping, which are given letters, which allow them to fight as a de facto navy. Thats whats going on, its privateering this is when dr. George logan of the logan act is a private citizen from philadelphia goes over and unilaterally on his own authority tries to negotiate a settlement with france. After that the Congress Passes this law that is being invoked today, strangely enough. He was a republican. He didnt want this, he went to on his own accord to try to negotiate peace. It was not viewed well by federalists for obvious reasons. We have a patient questioner over here. I was wondering whether theres other narratives, a french perspective on this, and also perspective of the native americans. This war that George Washington had participated in in 1752, which was a disaster started the war. It was basically going into the ohio valley and trying to take that land. As a result, the french and indians defeated that operation. Some treaties came out of it that basically restricted the expansion of the United States to the Appalachian Mountains. Those were the treaties in effect that allowed the french and indians to get along quite well in their relationships. They kept the americans from expanding. After the revolution all bets were off. It was the expansion into the indian territories, the ohio valley. It was quite destructive to native populations. Also it was a little upsetting to the french, who thought they would have some kind of the buildup of what you call this undeclared war as the federalists, especially in no england, looked towards canada as their first part of manifest destiny, which eventually results in the burning of york the capital of canada. Kind of america on its own, which led to the burning of washington in 1814. There must be also a different perspective, from the canadian, french, and native American Point of view. How we can kind of understand our current history, which is continually spreading its values i guess, with some military force. We build on these ideas that its all good to be a part of this expansion with weapons. Im just thinking, maybe theres another way of approaching it. We have reached maybe the end of empire. So the perspectives you are referring to, native americans, the effect on them, also the enslaved people, the people of canada, are part of the wave of historical studies that have recast the revolution and its aftermath in new light. The book i can think of for the canada is in french. The name will come to me the other aspects you were referring to, i can barely say. First by my book. Alan taylors American Revolutions. You might want to also get a rone discount with his american colonies. He treats us very well at the aspects you are talking about. American revolutions go for about preceeds of the seven years war through to about 1820 or so, talks about that sweep of history of which the american war is one part. Its a civil war that continues. The drive into the ohio valley afterwards, displacing the native nations. All become part of that fabric. It is quite well done. I cant really answer the question because somebody already has is what im suggesting. From the native american perspective, the revolution longterm was a catastrophe. Had the americans not won, i think they would have been in a stronger position. Iroquoisquite the were allied with britain and they had longstanding alliances. There were obvious reasons also for them to support the british. The iroquois lost. The british lost. They were not in a good position after the war. I have come around to thinking that from a general native american perspective, if you can posit such a thing, this whole. More from the seven years war until the war of 1812, was one long war. To maintain their territory, to keep the americans and british out of their territory. Ultimately losing more. But there were several different points where things could have turned out differently. Its not hard to imagine things turning out differently. One of them is when you are referring to. When the french and americans signed this alliance, americans committed themselves not to negotiate peace with britain. The broke that. They broke that commitment. Its largely because they fought they were probably right that the french would try to keep the ohio valley as neutral territory. So americans didnt want that. They got this concession from britain by negotiating a eace. Ate p from the canadian perspective, its a complicated question. First of all there is no canada until much later. Its really british north america. Things get reappropriated. Not too long ago in the 200th anniversary of the war of 1812 the government at the time was mobilizing which always made me laugh because there is no canada. In retrospect it becomes canadas war. Another one of these pivot points could turn out quite differently. Americans invaded canada, the british north america. They thought they were going to take it. In retrospect, they were pushed out by the British Empire. It becomes a moment where canadian sovereignty is established. That wouldnt be contested after that. There were rebellions in the 1830s, but the americans by that point had no interest in allying themselves with the patriot rebellion in canada. Thats the last attempt of the during the American Revolution there were attempts to invade canada. They thought settlers would rise up in alliance with them. That wasnt the case. But these two things are very much tied together. Americans were continually put wanting to push west. First they pushed up against the french, then the british government. They never wanted these restrictions. They pushed up continually against the native americans. There was this push west that drove this early history. By the way, i dont want to leave spain out. I am not going to go into any detail. The same forces were happening in spanish florida as well as further to the west in what was then the viceroyalty of new spain, which was mexico for much of the southwest. There were the same tensions there. Quite often a rocky relationship. When you think about north america, it really is a confluence of three large colonial powers all trying to push in the same directions. The native american nations who were not in any way a monolithic set of nations, but many nations arrayed around the lands, were continually being forced into regions that they did not traditionally inhabit nor did they want to be in. The whole history is starting to starting as you are to see historians rethink this less like this relentless push west. It is pushing from the north, the east to the west, also pushing from the south. Whats always amazing to me though, at this point, we are talking the end of the 18th century, there are three big actors in the whole of north america. Fastforward about 30 years and suddenly there is a dozen or more independent nations. Suddenly in this territory that used to just be the battleground of three great powers, now is a halfdozen or dozen nations trying to figure out where they are going to go from here. That was the impact of this revolution and postrevolution period. Closing remarks . Questions to the audience . By the way, we did not let you know that there will be a quiz. [laughter] in french. In french. We would like to remind you that both books will be for sale, both authors will be available for book signing. Theres a 15 discount. We invite you to read more deeply into this fascinating approach to the American Revolution. Thank you so much for coming. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] this weekend on American History tv on cspan3, today at 6 00 p. M. Eastern the black women who work as nurses, soldiers, and spies for the union army during the civil war. She was the wife of edward bannister. One of the leading africanamerican artists. She became involved in the underground railroad. She was a proud and consistent supporter of the u. S. Troops. University of washington professor on the 1968 president ial election. Hero after hero is slain. King, john f. Kennedy, and robert kennedy. This precipitates a broader national mourning. It throws the democratic nomination into even more turmoil. Author of the book, james madison, a life reconsidered, discusses James Madisons personality and political career. He was lucky enough to encounter doctors who told him to exercise. What a modern thing to think. It is often recommended today. Jfks nephew8 00, and historian Douglas Brinkley reflect on the life and career of the 35th president. He was a decorated combat veteran. He believed in a strong military. He had a much broader conception about what american identity was. He reached out across the aisle. He launched the peace accord in corps in 1961. For a complete schedule, go to cspan. Org. Historian Annette Gordon reed talks about Thomas Jefferson and the enslaved hemmings family, who lived and worked on his monticello, virginia, plantation. She discusses sally hemming who she argues had six children by jefferson. The university of Mary Washington in fredericksburg, virginia, hosted this event, as