>> sure. i have actually, lived with washington, i think, for about 25 years, i -- i wrote a biography of washington, back, in the 1980s, and i came back to washington, early in the decade, and wrote a comparative study of washington, john adams and thomas jefferson during the revolution and then turned to

washington as a politician, and looked at him in the ascent of george washington from that standpoint. and, i think in each of those endeavors, what strikes me about washington, is he's a very complex individual, and he's a very difficult person to get to know. he was very careful in anything that he wrote. and unfortunately, his widow, martha washington, destroyed all of their letters. so we can't really see a private side to washington. and, i think that is what fascinates me more than anything about washington, is to keep digging and digging to try to learn what i can about washington. >> host: to our viewers, what makes in-depth work, are your calls, and, we will be going to calls in about 10 minutes, for john ferling and we welcome your questions, we especially would like to hear from readers of his books but, also, people who are

interested in revolutionary war history an colonial america and george washington in particular and numbers or, eastern and central, 272-737-0001 and mountain and pacific time zones, 202-737 202-737-0002 and we'll mix in your calls and we'll spend our first hour on the biography of george washington and this second hour revolutionary and colonial america and third, hour, focusing more on dr. furling's books about adams an jefferson and the 1800 election and george washington's final years and importance of his actually turning over of power at this end of his presidency and what it meant for the rest of our history in america. and this museum has record crowds, coming here and tell us -- they expect a million people, in 2009, and i wonder what you think about the enduring

popularity of george washington. >> guest: it is really amazing, i think, he is clearly i didn't the most popular of all of the founding fathers, at least the most revered of all the founding fathers. in a way i think jefferson may be more popular and after david mccullough's book on john adams and the television programs, on adams, adams may be even more liked than washington. but, washington with certainly is revered and i think with justification. people look back on washington, and they see him as the man who was the commander of the continental army during the revolutionary war, that gained independence, and made a united states and then hooves the first president of the united states, so there are good reasons why washington should be remembered today. >> host: over my shoulder is a painting that is called "washington and lafayette at

mounted vernon, 1784" done by two french painters in 1859 and washington is depicted as much taller than lafayette and i would like you to talk about washington's physical presence. >> guest: well, he had be a extraordinary physical presence, probably 6'3" tall, and in fact he was always ordering his clothes from england before the revolution, sometimes, afterwards, and, he would orders clothing for a man who was 6'2" tall and would complain about this clothing being too short and i think 6'3" is probably what he was and when he served in the french and indian war, a young man, 22 years old when he commanded the virginia regiment during the war between 22 and 27, actually, and his aide left a description of washington and described him as a man with tiny waist, very broad shoulders,

tremendous upper body strength, and, we -- i don't know what washington weighed at that point, there is no record. but i do know that when -- during the revolutionary war when washington was 50 years old, he weighed 210 pounds and here's a guy, 6'3" tall, 210 pounds, and what you see on an nfl roster, for lots of players, he was in good physical condition. most of his life. and, many people described washington, in fact everybody seemed to be around washington couldn't resist the temptation, to leave a description of washington and many described him as the best horseman of his day and described his gait, means of walking, as walking in a very fluid manner, he was thought of as an athlete might be thought of, today. so i think that he did have this

just extraordinary physical presence about him. it was something john adams didn't have. john adams was a man of just ordinary height. which was about 5'7" tall, and adams spent a great deal of time trying to determine what was it that made somebody stand out, and be great, and somebody else not reach that point. and since he -- his presidency fell between washington, who was 6'3" and jefferson, 6'2", adams thought height was the determinant factor. but, washington was an im pogz figure a -- imposing figure and not -- almost unapproachable. very grave demeanor and i think that added to this imposing aspect of washington.

>> host: the tale that you tell in the as scents of george washington is his success was in no way guaranteed from his birth and circumstances and would you give us the highlights of that? . >> guest: sure. washington -- the misfortune of washington, had at an early age, was of his father, agust tan died when george as only 11 years old an george's older brothers had had the benefits of a formal education, and including schooling in england. but, when agustan -- augustand died the money dried in and washington's education came to an end and his inheritance was a rather modest inheritance and, enough that he would have again perhaps an important figure in a county, he was growing up around fredricksburg, virginia but given the circumstances he was probably unlikely to be known beyond that county.

so, molly ivans, the columnist, said george bush was born on third base, and george washington was born really, to continue the baseball metaphor, with a couple of strikes against him. and, he had to work to try to be somebody, if he wanted to be somebody and he most assuredly wanted to be somebody. she was a man with considerable ambition. he strikes me in a way, if the viewers have seen the movie "on the waterfront", remember there is a character there, marlin brando plays, in that movie, a washed up boxer, named terry mal loy, and terry malloy, threw a fight because his brother was in the mob and that ruined his chances to be a great, great fighter and he tells, marlon brando tells his brother, rod

steiger in a famous scene in that movie, if he hadn't thrown the fight he could have had an outdoor fight and i could have been somebody, he says and i think that is what washington wanted. he wanted to be somebody. and i think through his youth, he worked very hard to improve himself. he read, he came to mt. vernon, which was owned at the time by his stepbrother, half brother, lawrence, and nearby, mt. vernon was bellbay, owned by this wealthiers family in the northern neck of virginia and washington, was in the company of wealthy, powerful people and i think he watched those people, observed them trying to determine what they did. how they spoke to other and acted to others, and he really kind of -- that was his education. and that was a means of his

self-improvement and his advancement. when i taught i used to always tell my students, look at george washington and study george washington because here's a guy who really had to struggle to succeed and watch what he did. he was a guy who was really concerned with self-improvement and to the very end, i think he was constantly trying to improve himself. >> host: for our viewers, this week, start to get to your telephone calls, let me tell you the top line about mt. vernon, just coming up, to the 150th anniversary, as managed by the mount ladies -- mt. vernon ladies association and private, nonprofit and the present dense papers are housed here for historians to use for their research and as i said earlier, they have over a million visitors a year and the center we are in, the donald w.

reynolds museum and education center, was open just in 2006, if you come here you can still tour the mansion itself but then, can spend much time, inside this very rich gallery and theater here, and as we are talking today you will see some of the folks who are visiting mt. vernon around us because we're in one of the exhibit rooms here, that depicts washington's daily life and people are touring as we are talking and we are really part of mt. vernon's whole operations here today. for john ferling, let's take our first phone call from boston, this is john on the line with us. here on the air. >> caller: yes. i would like to ask mr. ferling, when the british shifted their focus of operations to the south, and -- in 1778, what person or persons made that decision? >> guest: well, i think it was a decision that was made by the british ministry by the largely

by lord george germane, the american secretary, responsible for american affairs and tantamount to what we would thing of as secretary of defense, in the united states today. and it was a decision -- the british faced basically one of two choices, by 1778, either throw in the towel, and give it up, or try and -- an alternative strategy, because they have waged war in the north, in 1775, 1776, 1777 unsuccessfully. spectacularly unsuccessfully at the end of 1777 and that general john bergoine's army surrendered at saratoga and so they chose at that point to alter their strategy, and try to conquer the southern colonies. i think they probably at that point didn't think they could

win the war. but, they -- what they were trying to do was salvage an american empire. they thought of the four southern colonies, virginia, north carolina, south carolina, and georgia, as their four most important colonies from an check standpoint, because those were cash crop colonies that produced tobacco in the upper south, and rice and indigo in the lower south and if they could reconquer those colonies, they could come out of the revolutionary war, with a large empire, and still held the american west and still held canada, they held several sugar islands down in the west indies, and so they would have still a large north american empire and, even if a few states gained independence, those states above the potomac, let's say, they would be completely surrounded

by british provinces, they would be hemed in, unable to grow and in essence, the british would either not lose the war and could in a sense conceivably come out with a victory of some importance. >> host: our next question for john ferling comes from ronald who is watching us in marysville, washington. >> caller: yes. good afternoon. certainly an honor to be able to talk with you. dr. ferling and c-span, i want to say this is a commendsable effort, particularly after all of the focus on lincoln and the bicentennial, i know you have commented in other venues, that the revolutionary war often gets overshadowed by our coverage though civil war and i have read most of your books and particularly value your emphasis on the role of contingency in historical outcomes which i believe coincides with the view that one of your con

peremptories, dr. david fisher and i have two questions -- contemporaries, dr. david fisher and we have two questions, one, i spent my earliest years, living with my grandparents, in old weathersfield, connecticut a block away from main street where the web house existed and still exists and as you know, i believe in may of 1781, the conference was held between generals washington and rochambeau and i read conflicting accounts of what conspired of that meeting and i know your views are -- have evolved, including your most recent elaboration, in your latest book, the ascent of george washington and would appreciate your summarization of what you understand took place, particularly in light of what actually ensued. secondly, while i have been proud of one of my ancestors' services in the union army, my

wife recently trumped me by her genealogy research and came up with a 5th grade grandfather, euro reyeah hawkins, the declaration, can be relied on and enlisted in 1775, april 19, the same day as the battles of lexington and concord and served 8 months in boston and reenlisted and served in london and white plains and joined washington's forces, and went to trenton, and he was in battle there and went to princeton in battle there and reenlisted under the israel angels who i dropped were at those locations and -- documented were at those locations and those individuals corroborated hawkins' service. >> host: what this is question about him, sir. >> caller: my question is, i am able to corroborate through secondary sources the locations of those units, are there primary sources that you could

recommend to me where i can do further corroboration? >> host: thank you so much for your questions. the first was, washington's meeting with rochambeau. >> guest: right, he met with him. >> host: who you explain who he is. >> guest: he is the commander of the french army. france allied with the united states, in 1778. and initially, the french sent a navy over to america, thinking that that would do the trick, and the american army in conjunction with the french navy, could win the war. and 1778 and 1779 went by and things looked worse that and tide wasn't turned and as a measure of desperation the french sent an army over to america that landed in rhode island, in the summer of 1780. and, row sham bow was the

commander of the french arm and washington's headquarters were -- was -- his headquarters were in new york at the time and he came over to first to hartford, and, met with rochambeau and met with him a second time a couple of months later and finally in may of 1781 they held their climactic conference at weathersfield in connecticut. which, the caller alluded to. and, that was a conference that was designed to prepare strategy for the campaign that was coming in 1781. and i think both washington and rochambeau realized that something decisive had to occur in 1781, for the cause -- or the cause was lost. america was broke, the french were gaining nothing from the war, there was great pressure on the french government to withdraw from the con reflect they were being -- conflict they were being driven into

bankruptcy, in fact by the war, and, so, this was a crucial meeting. and at the meeting, rochambeau begins we asking washington, what do you want to do in this campaign of 1781, and washington said, i want to try to take new york city. and, he says that is impossible. we can't take new york -- i have already explained that to you and explained that to you when we met last september. and in fact some of the french aides who were there indicated, later on that rochambeau spoke very harshly to washington. and essentially, what rochambeau -- the british have had a long time to prepare their defenses, in new york, there are two -- they are too solid, we can't take it, it would take too long, you can't keep a militia together long enough to conduct a siege operation. and, so, washington vowed to

rochambeau -- and he said what would be your second choice and washington said let's try a campaign in canada. and rochambeau said, no, i'm not interested in canada and then, he mentioned virginia. and washington wasn't interested in a campaign in virginia, at that time. and so they came back to new york, and rochambeau agreed with washington -- supposedly agreed with washington's earliest offer. let's attack new york. washington rode back to his headquarters and the instant washington was gone, rochambeau wrote to the french admiral in the caribbean and said, bring your fleet north. but he didn't say bring it to new york. he said, bring it to virginia. and so, he really seized the

opportunity that washington does not -- sees the opportunity that washington does not see at that point, although in fairness to washington let me say that at that point, there was a fairly small army, british army, about 3,000 men, in virginia, and over the summer, that army expanded, as general cornwallis came up from the carolinas until there were 8,000 british troops there, and, as time went on, washington began to see the opportunities, and then he relented, and he gave his sanction to a campaign in virginia and of course that campaign resulted in yorktown in october of 1781, and the decisive victory that secured independence for the united states. >> host: folks at mounted vernon are expecting record tourism today, open until 5:00 p.m., if you live in the washington, d.c. area and want to come down we're

in the scott gallery in the reynolds museum and education center and very much open for business today. so, we have lots of folks who are touring mt. vernon with us as we have our live discussion with dr. ferling today, next telephone call from magnolia texas, our viewer's name is david and what is your question. >> caller: i -- he always in his adult life, george washington had bad teeth problems. and i think, you know, all the stuff this guy had on his plate, the fact that he had toothaches all the time is unbelievable and what medicines did he take? thank you. >> host: thank you very much, in fact somewhere on display here are the famed washington wooden teeth, so, tell us about when he -- >> he did have dental problems and he told john adams when they were in the continental congress together that the problem went

back to him cracking walnuts, with his teeth. but, i suspect he probably had some sort of gum disease. that caused the problem, which adams also had, and adams lost most of his teeth, just as washington did as well. washington saw several dentalists, i'm not sure what kind of medicine he took. but, given the -- dentists, i'm not sure what he took but given the state of medicine in the 18th century i doubt he could have taken anything that would have been very good. he used lots of dentures, and i think eventually when he was president, he was wearing dentures that were made of hippopotamus ivory, i think, and they were a contraption made with a spring that he would put in his mouth and had to be extremely uncomfortable. and, washington himself, i think, was self-conscious of his

teeth, and of the false teeth that he wore, and so he fell into a habit early on of keeping his lips closed and to some degree, i think some people who were invited to dinner with washington spoke of washington tending to speak with his hand over his mouth, and in that fashion which would indicate, i think his self-consciousness. >> host: and maybe, earlier you said he was really taciturn, and we know, that might be the reason. >> guest: could possibly be a factor. >> host: this could be a very detailed question and i don't mean it to be because we have lots of callers waiting but when is the first time george washington broke into national consciousness and what caused it? >> guest: well, he actually came to the public's attention, when he was 22 years old. he was the commander of the virginia regimen, an army raised by virginia. the problem was, that both great

britain and france claimed what was called the ohio country. and the ohio country was essentially what we think of today, as ohio and indiana and illinois. and so there was a struggle going on between those two countries, they had actually fought three wars since the late 17th century with parts of america being an aspect, in those wars, and so, virginia sent an army out to the ohio country, it was actually an army that was to build a for fiction at the head of the ohio river, which is pittsburgh today, and when the army was created, washington was named the number 2 man in the arm, joshua frye, was the initial colonel, and

frey died in an accident and fell off his horse and was killed in the accident and washington was elevated at the age of 22, to be the commander of the virginia army. and he took the army out and ran into a force of french soldiers, as he was advancing on pittsburgh, he was still quite a ways away. 25 miles or so from the head of the ohio, and washington made a decision, i think probably a flawed decision, but he made a decision to try to ambush that french party. and he succeeded. in the ambush and ten or 11 french soldiers were killed. and then there was -- and the french fired back, at washington, but they were overpowered, and washington wrote an account, actually wrote several accounts of that, and sent it to friends and to the governor, and he said in one of the accounts, that i have heard

the bullets fly and there is something charming about the sound. and that letter was radio printed and even reprinted in london. so i think that was the first moment that people outside are a and virginians themselves probably generally became aware of george washington. >> host: john ferling our next question from mourn hill, arkansas, a viewer named alan. >> caller: good morning, doctor, an honor to speak with you. it said a lot can be told about a man by his heros, and i was reading gordon woods' book, revolutionary characters, what made this foue founders differe i believe he makes a pointed of talk about george washington and necessitys, the roman general and my two cincinnatis, the roman general and would you comment on washington and his

heros as we understand them to have been and the point that the revolutionary war or founders of the country, had a commonality of -- outlook about what government should be about and trying to learn from the past, greek and roman civilizations and not make the same mistakes, would you commented on that. >> host: may i ask, as a sort of a prelude, does your research indicated george washington was a reader. >> guest: he was a reader. he had a -- an expensive library, most of the books in the the library dealt with agricultural issues. he was a farmer, obviously. at mt. vernon, but he did read other things as well. we know for example, that washington read something when he was a young man, called "rules of civility" and those rules had -- they were a series of maxims, what we'd call a

self-help book today, that were devised by a french priest in the 17th century and washington, we know, read it and in fact while he didn't own a copy of the book, he evidently borrowed it from somebody and wrote the maxims out in his own hand. so he read those. and in addition to that, washington read some things about cicero, and he attended plays, liked the theater, and frequently, a number of occasions, he saw joseph add son's -- addison's play about cato and so washington looked on cicero as something of an early hero but i think washington's great hero was a living person,

and that great hero to washington and role model was his stepbrother, lawrence. lawrence was about ten years older than washington. during an oddly named war that was called "the war of jenkins ear" a war that broke out with spain in 1739, the americans were asked to raise a military force and about 3,000 americans served in that conflict and lawrence washington was one who served, he soldiered downed in the west indies and south america, and george met lawrence for the first time when george was probably about ten years old, lawrence was probably in his early 20s at that point. and here was a guy who was not only a soldier, something of a

military hero, he was wearing a uniform, cut a dashing figure, and i think perhaps more than anything, wealthy and powerful virginians deferred to lawrence. not because he was brighter than they were, not because he was more wealthy than they were but because he had been a soldier. and i think that resonated with washington, and i think that was probably the moment that washington decided that if possible, if a war broke out he'd like to soldier, too. >> host: we're at mt. vernon for this edition of in-depth, three hours long with john ferling, who is a revolutionary war historian, spent all of his career, delving into the complexity of that era of our history. and, has also, a washington biographer and the latest book "the ascent of george washington" and we are taking your cars and the caller that

asked about rochambeau also wanted to know rich sources one could go to about the units fighting in the revolutionary worry. is there such a place. >> guest: there actually are a number of books that are available, usually for each state, and i think, what i would suggest to him -- i don't remember what states he said his ancestor served in, would be go to a good library, and talk to a reference librarian, and start digging there. because, generally, each state has its own volume with information on the units from that state. >> our colleague, john kelly has a camera on his shoulder and is wandering around the exhibits, and the reynolds museum and education center and from time-to-time, if we cannel straighter questions we'll show you the exhibits and next is bob who lives in the town of mt. vernon, new york. go ahead, please.

>> caller: good afternoon, c-span, thank you for your programming and doctor, i is a pleasure to speak would you, from my reading i wondered how close george washington came to losing his command during various times during the war and it seems to me that his selection of nathaniel green bailed him out in -- on different occasions and i wonder if you have in sight as to the personal relationship if they had any or did washington just use nathaniel green based upon his record? thank you. >> guest: sure. let me try to -- because there are two questions there and let me try an answer both of those -- and take the question first of the opposition to washington if i could. washington made a lot of mistakes in the campaign of 1776 in new york. but i think most people were willing to overlook those

mistakes. he was new in command, an amateur soldier, and then, in the campaign of 1777, there were nor mistakes made by washington, at brandywine, and following brandywine, washington was largely inactive, in his efforts to finally take philadelphia and at the same time general horatio gates was scoring an amazing victory at saratoga, an entire british army was lost, at saratoga, nearly 7,000 british soldiers is your opinion soldiers surrendered in october of 1777 and the second campaign of mistakes by washington and afghanistan an alternative commander, somebody who had succeeded in the case of general

gates, led to a good deal of opposition to washington. there was some opposition, particularly among foreign soldiers, who were volunteering and serving with the continental army, but there was some opposition within congress as well. and remember -- i remember seeing one letter by john lawrence from south carolina, the president of the continental congress, in the winter of 1777, and 1778 and he wrote to his son, colonel john lawrence, in january of 1778, and he said i have just come from a meeting with 20 other congressmen and washington's opinions were treated with great laughter by those congressmen and i don't think there is any question that there was -- there was some opposition -- enough that some historians have concluded there was an actual

conspiracy to remove washington, a conspiracy they called the conway cabal. i do not happen to agree there was a really active con spaes of any size to remove washington and i think most congressmen realized that washington had many virtues, he hadn't miss use the power he had been vested with and he was quieting the queen, a british army and better, stronger force than gates had had to contend with. and also france was on the verge of coming into the war, if washington as dumped by congress france might change its mind and not come in and a political firestorm could break out, so i think that while there were some congressmen who were -- probably would have liked to remove

washington, i think they were very few and far between, and, in fact, i think what does happen, during the winter of 1778, the valley forge winter, by the way, was there was a conscious decision made by congress to elevate washington's status. this is the point in my estimation when washington becomes -- to jeuse john adams' term and he agreed with what i am saying, washington became the central arch in the american -- stone, rather, in the american arch, during that winter and this is the time when washington really becomes untouchable. so to speak from this point on. and rob the 18th century every country but the u.s. had a monarch and the monarch was the glue for the country.

he was a central figure around which, people could resolve and could hold things together, and the united states didn't have that and there was no mood after thomas paine's common sense to have a monarch in the united states and after the experiences the colonists had with george, iii but by making george washington the central stone in the arch, congress in effect, created an american -- uncrowned american king. and the second question, that you asked, i'll be more brief with this: was you asked about washington's relationship with nathanael greene and greene was one of about a dozen continental officers who were appointed as general officers, when the continental army was created in june of 1775. and, henry knox said that greene

was the most callow of all of the generals. but, washington, i think, saw something in greene. and he saw a capability, saw a guy who was growing, who had talent, and by 1776, there is nothing in writing that i am aware of to this effect, but, that this buzz that was going around in congress, at the time, was that washington had let congress know that if something happened to him, and he did not survive, he hoped that congress would name nathanael greene as his successor. so, they had a close relationship in -- and washington relied on greene very heavily, as his advisor and to go back to the first point that you made, the criticism of washington, one of the great criticisms that his critics offered was that he relied too

much on the advice of greene. but, i think washington was exactly right, greene became next to washington i think the best of america's generals, and in my estimation, he waged the best concerted campaign, a campaign that went on for about 100 days, in early 1781 in the south and i think it was the best extended campaign, waged by any american commander, washington included, during the revolutionary war. >> host: we are spending independence day, at -- weekend at mt. vernon, virginia, with washington biographer, john ferling, doctor is -- the doctor was born in charleston, west virginia and grew up in texas, ph.d. in history is from west virginia university. and spent his teaching career at the university of west georgia in carollton, georgia, 33 years in the classroom, and writing books all along the way. some ten in total that all focus

on the history and characters of the revolutionary war and colonial america and i have two callers who have been waiting patiently but i wanted to ask you, when did you take your career in the direction of revolutionary war history? what innocentsed that -- incented that. >> guest: i'can i back up and tk about history itself, when i was in high school, i saw a documentary and have seen it since, it wasn't a good documentary, it was david wolper, a documentary called "the twisted cross" on the rise and fall of hitler and i became fascinated, how somebody like that could get in power and do the things that he did and i think the day after i saw the documentary i went to the library for the first time in my life, of my own volition and checked out a biography of hitler and started reading and i

became interested in history, but when i went to college i hand sure what i wanted to do. and i took four required courses in history. western civilization, and u.s. history and all four of them pretty much turned me off, they were just factual memorization, and i got to the last semester of my sophomore year and had no idea what i would major in and had to declare a major and unfortunately for him and the -- fortunately for me and the guy who was teaching, on western civilization fell ill and had to go to the hop and in the time honored tradition of be a deem yeah they ran the freshly mounted ph.d. named william pay nor into teach the course and he tore up the class syllabus and said go to the bookstore and buy these paper back books and i don't remember all of them but a

remember one was allen bullock's biography of hitler, hitler, a study in tyranny and one a book on george washington, connell's book, george washington, man and monument and dr. paynor didn't lecture, we had class discussions, about these books, and i learned very quickly, i didn't know i had to read so there was an education and learning how to read a book, and as we would have these class discussions, i found myself becoming more and more intrigued and going to the library, and radioing and i became very interested in american history, for the first time. really, and decided i would go to graduate school in history and when i was working on my master's degree i took a course on the american revolution, and i think that was what really

steered me in the direction of the revolution and i got very interested in that topic. >> host: next question is from medford, oregon our viewer's name is steve, hello, steve, welcome. >> caller: good morning, over 40 years ago, i took a couple of survey courses, from a very young forest mcdonald. and i continue to keep in contact with him, as recently as earlier this year, and when i -- i seem to recall professor mcdonald describing washington as cold, formal and of only average intelligence, and then, professor mcdonald researched and wrote the presidency of george washington and completely turned around on that, his respect for washington increased greatly and i wonder if that is a common phenomenon among historians and one of the rules of civility, i believe is don't talk too much so i will listen on the air. >> host: thank you, i would like to use this as an opportunity to show your two biographies of

washington, how many years separate them, and -- >> "the first of man" came out 1988 and now is out of printed, but it is coming back in print, oxford university press has purchased the rights to it, and on president's day, in february, they are going to issue it and my biography, of john adams in paper back edition, so 21 years, separate these two books on washington. >> host: is that viewer's theory or description of forest mcdonald similar to your experience in did your view of journal washington change in that time period? >> guest: i think, yeah, my view of washington has been an evolving view. i think as i have grown older, there are things about washington that i appreciate that i didn't appreciate when i was younger. and there are some things about him that i have grown to

question. somewhat, i probably didn't question when i wrote the biography and the -- in the '80s i've more laudatory of washington as a military commander in the revolutionary war than i am now but on the other hand, i think as i have grown older and hopefully a bit more experienced, with the revolution, i have come to understand some of the political problems that washington encountered. i mean, there was a congress, but -- and each state had one vote, he had to deal with all kinds of congressmen, within delegations like pennsylvania would have 7 congressmen and only one vote and he'd have to deal with those people, in getting that one vote, and had to deal with 1 separate state

government, and -- 13 separate state governments and it was a political minefield and i have grown much more appreciative of washington as a political figure. and i think, i have grown to admire washington in a sense, too, in that during the war, the officers who were in around washington -- i mentioned earlier a lot of the foreign officers were critical of washington, but most of the native-born american officers almost worshipped washington. i think. we won their trust. he won their confidence. he even did that during the french and indian war, when he left the virginia regiment in 1758, his officers, many of whom were older men, who had much more military experience, than washington, wrote a long

declaration praising washington, for a number of things and so he had a real capability and he was obviously an extraordinary leader but he had a capability of winning the confidence of people that he worked with. as far as -- i did want to just say something quickly about the caller's question. and he referred to forest mcdonald who is one of the great historians in america, tout at the university of alabama toward the end of his career and i used a couple of his books as required reading in some of my courses. as a matter of fact. but, when he referred to washington as being cold, and formal, i'm not sure that he really meant that as a criticism of washington. it was what almost everybody said of washington. he was a rather cold and formal

person. my own theory on that is, it goes back to a habit that washington probably fell into, when he was a young man, coming up to mt. vernon and going to bellvoir and being around people who were far better educated than he was, and he probably put his foot in his mouth a couple of times and learned from that, maybe it is better just not to say anything, because i may say the wrong thing and just kind of stand on the sidelines, and watch and observe, and i think it became kind of a lifelong habit on washington's part, and it led people who met him to see him as extraordinarily reserved and cold and formal. >> host: our next question, comes from fister's, oregon, busy day for the west coast and our caller's name is lou. what is your question, lou? >> caller: good morning. yes. i enjoyed john ferling's books

very much and the last book is very interesting and really shed some light on part one of his book, "rise from obscurity" and the question is, multi--fold, is, with washington's high ambitions and status and -- politics and his military... planner and trader and the land speculator, and knowing he was a colonial and not going to be equal to the british officers, and things like that, his counterparts, i'm wondering if he had more in sight on knowing what was going to happen in the future and he also seemed like he had a lot to lose, because of his dabblings in all of these things and i wonder if you could commented and expand on this

matter a little bit. and i'll hang up and listen. thank you. >> host: thanks for your question. >> guest: sure, i don't think washington had a crystal ball. i don't think he knew any more about what was going to happen, down the road, than we do. and, as a matter of fact, here in this museum we are in, mt. vernon, there is a painting of washington sitting outside of mt. vernon and working on blueprints of mt. vernon and is expanding mt. vernon and when was he doing that that? he was doing that in 1774, the year before the revolutionary war broke out. which wouldn't be the year that one would want to start a huge renovation, job on your house, if you knew that you were going to be in the revolutionary war, this next year. in fact when washington came home from the first continental congress which met in september and october, of 1774, about 6

months before the war breaks out on april 19th of 1775, washington is buying land out west, he's in contact with some people in england, business contacts of his, where he is sending some of his grain and other products, and, this impression that i get, reading from washington's correspondence, is that he really doesn't think that there will be a war, at that point. he thinks that the british will back down, and that there will be some sort of settlement, in fact, when he went to the first continental congress he traveled with richard henry lee from virginia, and, at that congress, the congress adopted an embargo of british trade, and richard henry lee made the comment, the ship that brings -- takes the news of the boycott to london will bring back the news of

peace. and he thought that the british would back down and i think washington may have thought that as will. >> host: jody in memphis, tennessee, what is your question today. >> caller: i have two questions, i'll try to be brief. personal qualities aside i have always felt that alexander hamilton never got the credit that he was due. or is due, as a founding father and i was wondering if you would comment how his relationship with washington evolved over the years, and, then my second question is, did washington ever express a view regarding slavery going forward, many of the founding fathers felt that all the constitution really did was put a band-aid on it and that there was obviously going to be problems down the road and i was wondering if washington ever commented on how he thought slavery would evolve over the years? thank you very much, i'm

enjoying your program. >> guest: okay. thank you. let me take the first part of the question first, and that is washington's relationship with alexander hamilton. hamilton became an aide de camp to washington in february of 1772 and is early in the war, it is just after trenton and princet princeton occur and hamilton served with washington as a soldier for the next four years. and i think they developed a -- quite a close trusting relationship. washington was in the habit, when they weren't in a crisis situation, which was most of the time, he was in the habit in the evening of relaxing with his aides, and washington would have a glass of wine and maybe a bowl of nuts and he and the aides would sit around and talk. and hamilton i think was one of

those people who probably dominated every conversation he was ever in. and so washington i think became quite close to hamilton then and i think grew to understand hamilton's grasp of economic issues. so ultimately when washington became the president, he chose hamilton to be his secretary of treasury. i have forgotten this second part -- >> about slavery. big topic of slavery. >> guest: yes. yes. i hope in fact as we go along today to be able to talk about washington and slavery in some depth. i think the question that you asked was, did washington ever say much about it. and the answer is, no, he didn't, really. until the last year of his life, when he redrew his will. washington was a slave owner. he inherited ten slaves when he

was still an adolescent, when augustan his father died and married martha washington in 1759, he acquired a great many slaves, so that he owned about 100 slaves, when he left to become commander of the revolutionary war, and when he came home he no longer purchased slaves, but slaves were reproducing, obviously, and ultimately he wound up owning more than 300 slaves. but, he never really says very much about that. i think you have to look at his actions, and there were two things about his actions, before the redrew his will, that leap out. one is that after the revolutionary war he did not purchase additional slaves. you could argue he didn't do it for economic reasons, that he had a surplus, or labor, but i think part of it was an

indication that he had come to question slavery. but the second thing is, that washington after the revolutionary war, no longer sold slaves dividing slave families, which indicates that there had been a change in washington's thinking with regard to at least that aspect of the morality of slavery. >> host: thomas, watching us in burlington, vermont. hello, thomas. >> caller: my question is, in the continental congress, when they were trying to persuade france to join the war, was there talk of maybe letting france have quebec, prince edward island and nova scotia back as colony and -- that is me question. >> host: thank you. >> guest: no. the -- the envoys who were sent to france were instructed to --

not to give that away if it was at all possible. obviously, they wanted france into the war, that was the big thing they needed france in order to gain victory. and, what by now was clear as going to be a long war, and once the negotiations began, it became clear that the french were not interested in retaking canada and in the treaty itself, because of what the french dead, not because of any pressure put on them by the united states, the french renowned canada and in fact years and years after the revolutionary war when the archives were opened, what historians learned was that france hopped that great britain would retain canada because if british canada -- hoped that

grau great britain would remain canada, because if it stayed on the northern bored then the united states would have to remain tied to france for protection and this french were hoping that the united states would be a client state, for them to -- into the 19th century. >> host: we have -- hopefully will be a short question, because we have one minute in the first hour, this is a call from joseph in martinez, california, hello, joseph. >> caller: hello, thanks for taking my question. doctor, you mentioned the conway cabal and dis satisfaction with washington as commander and this is rather specific and do you have information about james lavell of boston's involvement with the dissatisfaction and it's not james lavell the astronaut. >> guest: no, i know. yeah. i -- i always pronounced it james "love-el" and he was a

congressman from boston and he was dissatisfied with washington and he, like a great many new englanders thought that horatio gates was the answer and preferable and, in fact, he wrote a letter in which he said he hoped gates would come south from new york and at least assist washington. so lovell was not particularly friendly to washington, as' military commander. he had a long, very interesting relationship by the way, just through correspondence, with abigail adams, they were close friends, and my good friend, eddie gallos who is a -- an abigail adams biographer wrote a wonderful article on the relationship between lovell and abigail adams a few years ago:

>> is a renext of his life and his character and his leadership and his accomplishments, and one of the things we ask people is what do they think about the color when they come in. they're kind of surprised it's so bright, it's so intense, and this would be an example, this

room, of george washington's status. one of the last rooms he adds to the house, he calls it the new room. and it has a 16-and-a-half foot ceiling, and if you look at the circles in each corner of the ceiling, and if you look at the marble mantelpiece, he's really telling you in this room with this symbolism what his favorite occupation was. not necessarily being a general, a president, but being a -- >> [inaudible] >> and remember we said he discontinued drawing tobacco, so it shows you what his main cash crop was, wheat or wheat grains. and you'll see that throughout with the symbolism over the doorways, the marble mantelpiece. by the way, that was sent to him by a friend, samuel vaughan. it came in ten different crates and initially he was concerned it would be too ornate. when he saw that it had farm scenes, why, he was putting it right in the center of his home.

now, we do believe that this was the room where george washington was informed by the secretary of congress that he had been unanimously elected the first president. what we like to share with our student groups is how difficult would it be to be the first president? in fact, george washington is even a little reluctant. he said, i go on untrodden ground. and we have to remember that george washington had to define and organize the presidency. so it isn't any wonder that george washington is a little concerned as to what does a president say, what does a president do, how does the president interact with the different bodies of government? everybody else is trying really hard to get elected president, george washington's almost a reluctant president. now, you think also that all the furniture was moved out, and in 1781 this became the war room. remember, george washington is away from his home for eight and one-half years, and this is where the last battle of the

revolutionary war was planed, we -- planned, we finally defeated the british at the battle of yorktown. i'm going to keep this group in. i get gettysburg and waterloo all too often, that's another reason why we're building that new museum. let's take a look at the oldest part of the house. let's go in. by the way, did everybody see the outside of the house? the outside of the house is wood. it's referred to as rust candidated, i believe george washington saw examples of this as a young man in newport, rye, and governor shiver ri's -- shirley's mansion in massachusetts. it's painted with ship's varnish to preserve it which is why a significant amount of the outside of the house is original wood. painted with white paint and then while the paint is still

wet they applied sand from his quarry to make it look like stone.

>> host: you're watching booktv's in depth program with john ferling. we're live today from mount vernon, virginia, the home of george and martha washington 16 miles down the river from washington, d.c., a place that has been open for many, many

years for people to tour and understand the life of our nation's first president. we're in our second hour of a three-hour program with john ferling, he is the author of ten books or so. we weren't able to count them all. [laughter] he's spent his entire career on revolutionary war history and biography of figures of the period. his latest book is the ascent of george washington, the hid l political genius of an american icon. we have many people who are interested in talking with you, but we're here at george and martha washington's home, and we haven't spent a moment on martha washington, and we must. i was interested in your biography that to read that he married very well and perhaps intentionally. is that fair? >> guest: well, it's -- i'm not sure i want to say that it was intentional, but it certainly looks that way. martha was regarded as the wealthiest widow in virginia. she had been married previously, and her husband had passed away.

and washington probably had met her when he was attending sessions of the house of burgesses, the virginia assembly. and certainly he began to call on her during 1758, and it was a very rapid courtship, and they married in january of 1759. >> host: twenty hours together before they married, is that -- >> guest: that's probably about right, yeah. he called on her. she lived down on the river in a place called the white house, ironically, that was the name of her plantation, and that was where he called on her. >> host: and how old were they at this time? >> guest: washington was 27, and she was, i think, maybe a year or two younger. he was 26, and i think 27 when they married. just about 28.

in fact, he and john adams and thomas jefferson all married at pretty much the same age, they were around 27 years old at the time that they married. all wanted to establish a career, i think, and establish themselves. >> host: but for her part the match was also a good one. this was someone publicly known and a prominent virginia family, so talk about the decision from her side. >> guest: yeah. i mean, george was the commander of the virginia regiment, so he was the leading soldier in virginia. he said i can't get married until we accomplish our ends, and our ends are to take the head of the ohio. that was accomplished at the very end of november of 1758. he resigns his commission two or three weeks later, comes back to virginia and maries a week or two -- marries a week or two after that, so she was marrying

an extremely prominent virginian. and i think it was clear that here was a guy who was going places. i mean, he not only had mount vernon, he had gotten mount vernon in 1754. lawrence, who owned it, had died. lawrence, lawrence and his wife did not have a male heir, and when lawrence's widow married, remarried, then mount vernon passed to george. so here was a guy who was in possession of a large plantation, he was one of the most prominent virginians because of his military service. he was on his way toward wealth and power within virginia, so from martha's stand point he was a good catch as well. i did want to say people do say, well, washington married the wealthiest widow in virginia, so it must have been something that he was sort of conniving for.

and there's no evidence for that. we don't know exactly what went into his thinking at the time, but what appears to be the case is that they did have a very close relationship. i mean, they were married until washington died in 1799, so my math isn't very good, 40 years, i guess, that they were married. but they appear to have had a close, loving relationship as best we can tell during the revolutionary war, for example, washington when the armies would go into winter quarters, he would always have martha come and stay with him at headquarters, and then when the campaign season was coming on as washington would put it in his letters she would march home again. so they did spend some time together then, and the unfortunate thing as i mentioned earlier was that martha burned

all of their correspondence. and so we don't know what went on. the same thing happened with jefferson except in that case jefferson burned all -- he was the one that burned the correspondence with martha. the correspondence that really has survived among the founders is the correspondence of john and abigail adams, and we know a great deal about their relationship, and we wish that we did, that we knew more about washington and martha. >> host: during this hour we hope to focus a little more on the revolutionary war period of u.s. history and some of dr. ferling's titles include this one, a leap in the dark, the struggle to create the american republic, and also almost a miracle, the american victory in the war of independence. we know many of you are military history buffs, and we hope you'll add your questions to our discussion. let's take a telephone call from tom in illinois. hello, tom.

>> caller: hello, how you doing? i have a quick question for dr. ferling, and that involves the bottle of monomouth and charles lee's performance in that battle. i've grown through my readings to dislike charles lee, of course; a foreign officer, one of those dr. ferling's already mentioned who did not like washington. and there are those accounts, i have looked at those accounts who defend lee to some extent saying that washington never flushed out his orders to charles lee at monmouth. but, of course, we know later during the course of the battle washington fires him. my question is with regards to the vigor and the way that he carried out washington's orders. i think washington was justified, but what is your take in it, dr. ferling?

in the sake of brevity, i'll hang up to listen to your response. thank you very much. >> host: thank you. >> guest: sure. i'm one of the few historians who really likes charles lee, i think. i admire lee as an officer. he was a british officer who left the british army, resigned his commission, and he moved to virginia, and he settled in what is now shepherdstown, west virginia, not too far from mount vernon, as a matter of fact. and when it appeared that the revolutionary war was going to break out just in the last days -- i guess it was actually even after lexington and concord and it was clear that a national army would be formed, lee came to mount vernon and beseeched washington to go to bat for him and try to get congress to name him as a general officer. when the army was created. and washington agreed to do that.

and i think in the early part of the war washington had a good relationship with lee. he regarded lee as probably the best military mind in the continental army at the outset of the war. lee grew, i think, to become disappointed in washington. he thought washington was too indecisive on the battlefield to be a good general. and at monmouth which is one of the most could be -- confusing operations during the revolutionary war, it's a battle that unfolds in the summer of 1778. the british had occupied philadelphia there giving up philadelphia, and the british army is marching from philadelphia back to new york. and washington is trailing that army. washington is in possession of an army that has been retrained and rebuilt at valley forge

trained by the baron, and washington wants to use that army in some way. and he convenes his generals as congress ordered him to do, as a matter of fact, in what was called a council of war and asked the council, what should i do with the army? how should i attack the british? and the council recommended that washington not hazard too much. france was coming, had allied with the united states, a french fleet was expected to arrive in america shortly, and it did actually about ten days after monmouth. so the council voted nod to try -- not to try to too much, t to simply make an attack on the rear of the british army. and that was, in fact, what lee attempted to do hoping perhaps to score not a decisive victory,

but maybe to inflict as many losses on the british as washington had inflicted on them on the hessians at trenton back on christmas night of '76. and everything that could go wrong went wrong during the battle not because of what leec did, but because of what lee's subordinates did. and lee ultimately decided during the battle that he had to retreat, or he was going to get bottled up by a series of ravines that ran across the battlefield, and he would face destruction. and when washington learned that lee was retreating, washington just became furious. he had a monumental temper to begin with, and washington rode out on the battlefield, confronted lee. some of the officers who were present said that washington cursed lee, and one of the officers said that washington cursed that day until the leaves

shook on the trees. and what he did do, he didn't actually fire lee, but he did relieve lee of command, and he assumed command himself. and then washington did precisely what lee was trying to do, he retreated and set up defenses and fought the remainder of the battle of monmouth. >> host: next is a call from billings, montana, and our viewer's name is corbett. hello. >> caller: hi. i recently finished a book on the french-indian war, and i was struck by the military foresight of washington and the political foresight of benjamin franklin, yet they were very different people with different personalities, and i was wondering if you'd discuss your view of the washington-franklin relationship and how that developed. >> guest: sure. washington and franklin actually met first during the french and indian war. there was a conference not far from here at mount vernon in

alexandria, a conference to arrange for providing provisions for the army that was being sent under general james brad dock in 1755 out to the head of the ohio. and washington was present and franklin was present, and they met at that point. as far as i know they didn't meet again until franklin entered the second continental congress in may of 1775. and they really didn't see very much of one another. they were colleagues in congress for about a month in may and june of 1775, then washington was appointed commander of the continental army and franklin remained in philadelphia in the congress. franklin did come to cambridge, massachusetts, where

washington's headquarters was located in october of '75. that was on congressional business, and then a year or so later franklin was sent overseas as an american envoy, and he remained in europe for the duration of the, of the war. so they really were never in one another's presence very often, but washington, i think, certainly knew of franklin's reputation, knew a little bit, knew him personally to just slightly. they corresponded a little bit. i would have to go back and count the letters, but there aren't very many letters between them during the war. and as far as i know, both respected one another. i'm unaware of anything that franklin ever said that was critical of washington or anything that washington ever

said that was critical of franklin. >> host: this question comes by e-mail from marjorie lyons who writes, i'm reading kenneth roberts' historical novel published in 1940. writes, this is a fascinating story told from the torre point of view. in regard to george washington's political act cuemen, what was his interaction with the torre leadership during and after the revolution? >> guest: well, washington, i mean, he didn't as far as i know really have any relationship with the tories except a couple of the fairfaxs with whom he had been close prior to the revolution had, obviously, remained tories, and then they had left and gone to england, and he corresponded with them. but i'm unaware of washington taking any, any particular stance on the matter.

in fact, most of what was worked out with regard to the tories was worked out either in the peace settlement in which the united states refused to give any compensation for the property losses that the loyalists had sustained, so the british did that themselves. and then in each state there were actions taken at least in some of the states to prevent retribution against the loyalists. but as far as i'm aware, washington took no stiffs. there's no, no indication that he wanted to carry out reprisals, but there was no indication that he wanted to do anything for them either. >> host: a quick question before mary from lexington, kentucky. after the outcome was known, did many of the loyalists board ships and return to england? >> guest: yes. several thousand, in fact, left.

some left from savannah, some left from charleston, the largest number left from new york at the very end of the war in december of 1783. so that actually several thousand left the united states. i shouldn't say they all went to england, some went to the caribbean, to british islands, quite a few went to canada, some went to england. >> host: mary from lexington, good morning or rather good afternoon to you. what is your question? >> caller: yes. i know that the association there at mount vernon keeps his diaries, and i was just wondering did you know that there were several volumes missing? and what was his relationship with lafayette? did they know each other, like, when he was 26 years old doing surveying and surveying,

navigating the waters west there? >> host: all right, thank you very much. first one, washington's diaries. >> guest: right. washington's diaries that exist have been republished as part of the washington papers' project at the university of virginia. dorothy tooie was one of the editors of those volumes, and they run six volumes. and you're correct, not all of the washington diaries have survived. so there are gaps in those diaries. washington -- having said that, i should also point out that washington at least from my standpoint was not a particularly good diarist. john adams was. john adams literally bared his soul in his diaries. and washington's diaries are quite frequently tend to be just

a compilation of who attended, who was at mount vernon that day. he would list the names of people. some of them would go on to be well known, for example, he said there was a noah webster here today. and occasionally there would be people that he didn't get their names. he would say two women who i don't recall their names were here. so most of, much of, many of the entries were along those lines, and then he also kept some records on the weather at mount vernon. he would list the temperature and tell whether it was a hot day or snowed that day or whatever. but it is an incomplete record, and even though the diaries you sometimes wonder about the value of washington's entries, historians always want more and more information.

as far as the second question on lafayette, washington did not meet lafayette until lafayette volunteered to come to america as a soldier during the revolutionary war, and that was in 1777 about two years after washington was made the commander of the continental army. and then they developed an extremely close relationship. i find it one of the most intriguing of the relationships of washington, one that's difficult to pin down. most people portray it as a father/son relationship. washington was old enough to be lafayette's father, about 20-some-odd years separated them in age, and washington had no children, and lafayette had lost his father when lafayette was still a youngster. so you can certainly make a persuasive case that there was almost a father/son relationship between the two.

but washington was a public figure and a political figure who had to make political decisions, and lafayette was a frenchman, and washington was first trying to -- hoping very much that france would become an ally of the united states. and then secondly, trying to keep that ally happy once it did form the alliance with the united states. and so one always has to wonder in looking at this relationship how much of it was really a true personal relationship. and i think it was. and how much of it was purely that of a diplomat or a statesman or politician on washington's part, and i think that element was there as well at least during the war. >> host: over my shoulder is a very large painting that is here in the reynolds center at mount

vernon. it depicts washington and lafayette at mount vernon in 1784, was painted by two french painters, and we are here at mount vernon today with the good graces of the mount vernon establishment who have been very gracious to u